40K Online
Community => The Discussion Board => Topic started by: Irisado on April 26, 2016, 04:28:22 PM
-
Since this is my 10,000th post here, I thought I'd try to make a telling contribution, so here goes...
As many UK members will be aware, the UK is holding a referendum on 23rd June on whether to remain in the EU or to leave. This is one of the most important decisions many voters are going to take in their lifetimes and the debate has become very heated and clouded by a significant amount of misinformation. The majority of the voting public has no clue about how the EU works, resulting in numerous requests for the facts, but the trouble is a lot of EU related issues do not have clear answers, making it difficult to provide short fact based answers to many of the key questions.
I have taught and researched EU politics, so I've been trying to inform people as much as possible through talks and online discussion about how the EU works and what some of the misconceptions about it are. As a result, I thought I'd try to clear up a few issues about the EU for anyone here who happens to be interested or for any UK members who are unsure about how they are going to vote.
To begin, I'd like to clear up the biggest myth of them all, and that is the claim that the EU is a dictatorship and/or is unelected and unaccountable and tells us (the UK) what to do. It is not and it does not. Like all member states, the UK sends elected MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to Brussels to vote on legislation, while our ministers (elected MPs from our governing party) sit on the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers co-legislate on proposals from the European Commission (which initiates legislation). This is called the Ordinary Legislative Procedure and it covers the majority of EU decision-making. The Commission is also heavily lobbied by member states and interest groups of all kinds when drawing up its proposals in much the same way as national governments are lobbied and take evidence in the UK. It can be argued that the Commission, being appointed, is unelected and lacks democratic legitimacy, however, the European Parliament has to approve the appointment of all Commissioners and has rejected some in the past, so this is an issue which is open to debate and discussion.
Much of the rest of the debate about the EU is open to debate, but there are a number of other facts which need to be stressed. The first is that leaving the EU would not solve the supposed immigration problem that the UK has. This is because the UK is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, so it bound by its asylum regulations, and given the mass immigration from countries outside the EU, the flow would not suddenly dry up if the UK were no longer in the EU. The second is that the EU budget costs the UK a lot of money and we receive nothing in return. While it's true that the UK is a net contributor (£8.5bn, a very small figure compared to government spending within the UK, such as the £116bn allocated to the NHS budget for 2015/16), it receives money back from the EU in terms of investment in poorer areas and regions. Notably, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and parts of North-East/South-West England receive significant funding from the EU regional fund.
Many of the other issues are open to debate, but the trouble is that so many meaningless or incorrect statistics are thrown around by both sides that it's hard to discern who is telling the truth. There is, however, a useful source that can help: Research Briefings - EU referendum: impact of an EU exit in key UK policy areas (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7213). This summary is the most impartial that I have found, so it may be a helpful read for anyone who is undecided.
As for me, I'm very much in the remain camp. The majority of people who I have taught over the years end up having a more positive view of the EU than they did before they learnt more about it, so I'd encourage anyone who is unsure about the EU to look up the facts about it before making up their minds. We can also discuss any EU related issues in this topic if anyone wants to learn more or to debate particular issues.
I hope that the UK will stay in the EU, because to retreat to the days of the Empire, and to look for a lost era of influence would be very harmful to the future interests of the country. Also, the EU has been a massive leap forward in terms of integration, cooperation, and peace in a continent that was, for many centuries ravaged by war and disharmony. Yes, the EU has faults, and yes reforms need to be made, but the UK needs to be at the heart of the EU to work with others to make them and not sail off into splendid isolation and turn its back on its neighbours. I believe that the majority of the evidence supports these views and the future of the UK is within the EU. I will thus be voting to remain. How about you?
-
What a 10,000th post!
To be honest I was in a bit of a quandry over which way to go but at the moment I am leaning towards voting to leave.
I don't understand the economics and to be honest I'm not even going to try, I've never studied economical science and like you have mentioned there are so many figures being bandied around it's very tough to know what is real and what is inflated/deflated.
My big issue is with TTIP, as a member of the EU we have to be involved with it and for someone in my line of work it could be pretty disatrous.
I work in the public sector and in the last elections a Conservative majority was my worst nightmare, no matter how many times they try and say that they don't want to they are slowly selling off bits of all of the public sector services (Hospitals, Prisons even Police) and it is starting to really have a negative effect, the service level provided by these 3rd party companies is not up to scratch in most cases and in some it's even costing the government more than if they had kept them public!
TTIP gives them a lot more scope for larger companies from the states etc to come in and get involved, even bringing staff with them with no issues from VISAs etc. Should TTIP come into place I could quite easily see American Corporations coming in and taking over parts of the NHS and parts of the Prison service, two services that the UK is famed for and as much as we like to complain about them possibly two of the best in the world for what they do.
I'm not going to lie, I am extremely distrustful of this government, having gone 4 years having pay decreases every year and seeing colleagues flocking to leave a service which is on it's knees makes me quite anti-conservative. Yes things may not have been much better under Labour but I can see things getting a whole lot worse than they are now under Cameron.
-
I'm voting to leave. And here's why.
First of all, I think the euro is an unmitigated disaster and it needs to go pronto. It won't survive another market crash. And Greece is about to go under again very soon. And it's never going to recover until it can get its own currency that it can devalue to relieve the pressure. Incidentally, we were told that we had to join the euro or Britain would be left isolated with no investment, a broken economy etc whilst the Eurozone surges forth without us. That didn't quite happen though did it?
Another reason is the situation with Turkey. It's going to be admitted to the EU, and that's despite the fact that it has an authoritarian dictator (Erdogan) in charge. I was reading with disgust about that comedian in Germany who's being charged with insulting the bastard, whilst in Holland he's asking for the names of other people who insulted him. Not to mention the matter of the Armenian genocide. That the EU heirarcy is prostrating themselves to this scumbag shows how weak and morally bankrupt they are. They should be condemning him in the strongest terms possible constantly. Incidentally, in my opinion not only should Turkey be blocked from joining the EU, it should be kicked out of NATO.
And the EU didn't keep the peace. The Cold War and NATO did. It was NATO who dealt with the Bosnian War, not the EU. And we don't relay on the EU for security. It's the Five Eyes that protect us. If anything the EU hinders things on account of their incompetence.
The reaction of the EU to the recent Dutch referendum also strengthened my resolve to leave. They don't care about democracy at all. They have their plans and agendas and they're going to pursue them regardless of what the opinion of the people is.
Then there's the constant problems with the ECHR. Yes that's a separate organisation but since we can't do anything about it whilst we're in the EU I have no choice but to vote leave. Anders Brevik's recent successful appeal was the final straw for me. The only thing he deserves is a rope around the neck.
And I know too that if we vote to stay in the EU it is going to hammer us merclessly afterwards because they'll have called our bluff. I predict an avalanche of legislation and power grabs dropping on us. And I also predict that Cameron's so called deal will be voted down in the parliament, making one reason to stay a moot point.
We'll survive outside of the EU. We're the fifth biggest economy in the world, on course to be the fourth. Much smaller countries than us do ok without being part of a partnership like the EU. So will we. Maybe when the EU finally collapses we can set up a new common market in its wake that is a market only and leaves the political power grabs in the bin.
I'm set to vote to leave, and I fear that if we do stay it'll be the biggest mistake we've made in decades.
-
I don't understand the economics and to be honest I'm not even going to try, I've never studied economical science and like you have mentioned there are so many figures being bandied around it's very tough to know what is real and what is inflated/deflated.
The problem is that even those who have studied it do not really know, because economic forecasting is so very difficult. What is likely is that the glorious forecasts made by the leave campaign about how easy it would be for us to make bilateral trade deals are extremely unlikely to be that easy, as Obamas's speech a few days ago indicated, and that while the UK is not as dependent on trade with the EU as it used to be, it still makes up a very large percentage of our trade.
My big issue is with TTIP, as a member of the EU we have to be involved with it and for someone in my line of work it could be pretty disatrous.
I work in the public sector and in the last elections a Conservative majority was my worst nightmare, no matter how many times they try and say that they don't want to they are slowly selling off bits of all of the public sector services (Hospitals, Prisons even Police) and it is starting to really have a negative effect, the service level provided by these 3rd party companies is not up to scratch in most cases and in some it's even costing the government more than if they had kept them public!
TTIP gives them a lot more scope for larger companies from the states etc to come in and get involved, even bringing staff with them with no issues from VISAs etc. Should TTIP come into place I could quite easily see American Corporations coming in and taking over parts of the NHS and parts of the Prison service, two services that the UK is famed for and as much as we like to complain about them possibly two of the best in the world for what they do.
I also have concerns about TTIP, but not enough for it to worry me about our membership of the EU. Here's why. It's more likely that we'd end up with a more moderate version of TTIP if it goes through the EU, because the nature of the EU means that the majority of extreme positions will make way for a compromise. Let's face it, if the Conservative government were to forge a bilateral deal with the US the chances are that they would create a deal which would allow for greater privatisation and liberalisation of the public sector, so EU membership may well help us out a bit here.
Also, consider that Tony Blair's Labour government was very keen on part privatisation and privatisation, finishing off much of what Thatcher and Major started, so it's not just the Conservatives to blame for this ;). They are taking it even further though, so I share your concerns. However, I think that the EU offers a better chance of improving the deal for the public sector than would be the case if the UK were to leave and negotiate its own trade deal with the US.
I'm not going to lie, I am extremely distrustful of this government, having gone 4 years having pay decreases every year and seeing colleagues flocking to leave a service which is on it's knees makes me quite anti-conservative. Yes things may not have been much better under Labour but I can see things getting a whole lot worse than they are now under Cameron.
Consider what may happen if vote leave won. Cameron would probably resign early and Boris Johnson would, in all probability, challenge for the leadership, and he could easily win with the backing of Eurosceptic Tories. The result would be a much more right wing government than the one we have under Cameron. On that basis, I'd argue that the public sector would be safer for longer if Cameron keeps hold of the reigns of power.
First of all, I think the euro is an unmitigated disaster and it needs to go pronto. It won't survive another market crash. And Greece is about to go under again very soon. And it's never going to recover until it can get its own currency that it can devalue to relieve the pressure. Incidentally, we were told that we had to join the euro or Britain would be left isolated with no investment, a broken economy etc whilst the Eurozone surges forth without us. That didn't quite happen though did it?
There was a debate about Greece dropping out of the euro and economists concluded that this would be even worse for the Greek people, so the EU has done its best to prevent this from happening. That's not to say that austerity has been successful and that the reform package has been well thought through, but the dominance of the IMF and World Bank in terms of influencing financial governance tie the hands of many a world leader.
Some people did argue that Tangi, but an evaluation was undertaken by pro-EU members of the Labour government (principally Gordon Brown) who concluded that it was not right for the UK to join the euro. A correct decision in hindsight, but only because the way in which the euro is administered is flawed. The European Commission had issued warning about Greek debt long before the crash of 2009, and even France and Germany were warned about their failure to stick to the criteria. The member states ignores the warnings. You could, therefore, argue that the member states were very much at fault here, and that the EU institutions were let down by the very governments who were supposed to be sticking to the rules.
The main point here though is that the EU is not the euro. You can have the former without the latter, and the UK has an opt-out from the euro that's going to last, and has been written into the Treaties for a number of years now. As a result, we are under no obligation to join the euro, so objection to the euro is not a good reason to take us out of the EU.
Another reason is the situation with Turkey. It's going to be admitted to the EU, and that's despite the fact that it has an authoritarian dictator (Erdogan) in charge. I was reading with disgust about that comedian in Germany who's being charged with insulting the bastard, whilst in Holland he's asking for the names of other people who insulted him. Not to mention the matter of the Armenian genocide. That the EU heirarcy is prostrating themselves to this scumbag shows how weak and morally bankrupt they are. They should be condemning him in the strongest terms possible constantly. Incidentally, in my opinion not only should Turkey be blocked from joining the EU, it should be kicked out of NATO.
That's factually incorrect. Nothing has been signed to grant EU membership to Turkey. All that has been agreed is that Turks will have an easier time of things getting Visas to enter and work in the Schengen area in exchange for a rather bad deal over taking back immigrants who have passed through Turkey as a transition state. Turkey cannot join the EU because it fails to meet the criteria and will continue to fail to meet them for a very long time. There is no imminent prospect, therefore, of Turkish membership.
As for the comedian, that's an issue associated with German law, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
And the EU didn't keep the peace. The Cold War and NATO did. It was NATO who dealt with the Bosnian War, not the EU. And we don't relay on the EU for security. It's the Five Eyes that protect us. If anything the EU hinders things on account of their incompetence.
You're looking at the wrong part of history from that period. It's the late 1940s and 1950s where you need to look. It's all about how France and Germany came together to agree to form the European Coal and Steel Community, in order to assuage concerns about the militarisation recurring in Germany and to pool sovereignty over steel and coal. This was the start of what is now the EU. We (the UK) could have joined way back then in 1951/52, but we chose not to. This was subsequently found to be a massive mistake which is why our leaders tried to take us into the EEC (now EU) twice in the 1960s, only to be vetoed by De Gaulle. That's why we didn't get in until 1973.
As for Bosnia, you're right that the EU's response was poor, but the reason for that was because there was no EU defence force and this is why they had to rely on NATO and later UN peacekeepers (although this did not work out at all well). Also, remember that none of the Balkan countries were part of the EU in the early 1990s, so to say that the peace project failed is something of a revision of history ;).
The reaction of the EU to the recent Dutch referendum also strengthened my resolve to leave. They don't care about democracy at all. They have their plans and agendas and they're going to pursue them regardless of what the opinion of the people is.
The vote in the Netherlands was not a representation of the democratic will of the people. The turnout was a dismal 32%, of which 65% voted against the treaty with Ukraine. That's such a small percentage of the total population of the EU that it doesn't even register. How is it democratic for such a small percentage of the population to hold back an EU deal?
Then there's the constant problems with the ECHR. Yes that's a separate organisation but since we can't do anything about it whilst we're in the EU I have no choice but to vote leave. Anders Brevik's recent successful appeal was the final straw for me. The only thing he deserves is a rope around the neck.
Fighting fire with fire never works and neither does capital punishment, but that's a debate for another thread ;).
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU, as you say, so how is leaving the EU going to change anything? We'd still be bound by that court, unless we chose to leave that too.
And I know too that if we vote to stay in the EU it is going to hammer us merclessly afterwards because they'll have called our bluff. I predict an avalanche of legislation and power grabs dropping on us. And I also predict that Cameron's so called deal will be voted down in the parliament, making one reason to stay a moot point.
Do you think that the other member states would give us preferential deals and want to be nice to us if we were to leave? Again, this whole idea about power grabs and an avalanche of legislation cannot happen. I refer you to the ordinary legislative procedure I outlined above. Also, other member states would be against mass legislation, so where's your evidence that any of this is going to happen?
As for the deal being voted down in the European Parliament, they've already had the chance to do that, but did not do so. If there were to be any challenge, it would be far more likely to come from a member state, but again, there has already been an opportunity to do this.
We'll survive outside of the EU. We're the fifth biggest economy in the world, on course to be the fourth. Much smaller countries than us do ok without being part of a partnership like the EU. So will we. Maybe when the EU finally collapses we can set up a new common market in its wake that is a market only and leaves the political power grabs in the bin.
We'll survive, yes, but we will lose out on a whole raft of preferential deals. We will be isolated and adrift in the Atlantic pretending to be an influential country when we are not. We do not have the political influence to be independent. We are not a superpower. As for smaller countries doing better, I'm curious, could you give me some examples please?
Finally, I refer you to the section in the document on Northern Ireland that I linked to in my opening post. Northern Ireland is one of the areas which would lose the most in economic terms from the UK's withdrawal from the EU, so you'd effectively be hurting your own prospects. I'm thus confused by your position.
To conclude, I agree that there are some problems, notably regarding the euro, but the weight of evidence shows that a number of the points you are making do not correspond to the facts. As a result, I'm left rather baffled by your desire to leave, since many of your complaints about the EU are not based on the reality of the situation.
-
I'm not from the UK so my opinion doesn't really matter one way or the other. I think stay, if it matters.
This has also come up in the US elections with The Donald. When it comes to renegotiating trade treaties, what makes the exit people think they're negotiating from a position of strength rather than weakness? What's currently off the table to make the deal better than what's already there?
-
Martin Schulz himself said in an interview that if the EU was a state wishing to join, it would not be accepted because it does not meet it's own requirements.
IIRC the EU Parliament does not even posses legislative initiative. Sure, they can oversee stuff from the Council and the Commission but in the end, they really can't do much except for talking. This is not good, since the parliament is the only democratically elected body in the EU.
To the 'normal citizen' it seems like the real power in the EU is held by Banks, Companies and their army of lobbyists. When an expert committee for banking largely consists of former Goldman-Sachs scum, you know where you're at ;). But maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut who's read Nineteen eighty-four too many times.
Ten years ago I was very much in favor for a swiss membership in the EU but seeing how things developed I have to say I'm glad we're not in it (and I'm very much left wing). I'm looking forward to see the outcome of this vote, whatever it will be.
-
IIRC the EU Parliament does not even posses legislative initiative. Sure, they can oversee stuff from the Council and the Commission but in the end, they really can't do much except for talking. This is not good, since the parliament is the only democratically elected body in the EU.
They do a lot more than just talk. They're a co-legislator (see the ordinary legislative procedure in my first post above) and have far greater powers than they used to. They can also lobby the Commission to initiate or draw up legislation, so they're not powerless.
To the 'normal citizen' it seems like the real power in the EU is held by Banks, Companies and their army of lobbyists. When an expert committee for banking largely consists of former Goldman-Sachs scum, you know where you're at ;). But maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut who's read Nineteen eighty-four too many times.
Banks hold too much influence and power everywhere, so this isn't just an EU specific problem.
Ten years ago I was very much in favor for a swiss membership in the EU but seeing how things developed I have to say I'm glad we're not in it (and I'm very much left wing). I'm looking forward to see the outcome of this vote, whatever it will be.
The Swiss deal with the EU is interesting, as some have suggested that the UK could follow this model, but many in the know in Switzerland don't advise the UK to go down this route, and for good reason. I think that this article explains the issues quite well: EU referendum: Can Switzerland show UK route to Brexit? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35615604).
-
There was a debate about Greece dropping out of the euro and economists concluded that this would be even worse for the Greek people, so the EU has done its best to prevent this from happening. That's not to say that austerity has been successful and that the reform package has been well thought through, but the dominance of the IMF and World Bank in terms of influencing financial governance tie the hands of many a world leader.
Yes it'll be harder in the short term but it's probably the only way they'll recover. Staying in the Euro is never going to repair the damage and they'll just linger in the limbo they're stuck in now. The financial event horizon has been crossed. Sure the national governments have to share their portion of the blame but the Euro has got to go.
I laugh too at how we're doing better than the other EU countries by namely staying out of the EU's key schemes (the Euro and the Schengen Area). From supporters of the pro EU side I've been told to my face that 'yes, the two corner stones of the whole EU project have been complete disasters, but at we still have to stay in the EU for their benefit and ours, and eventually we should join the Euro and Schengen Area too, to share the burden'. No thank you. :P
That's factually incorrect. Nothing has been signed to grant EU membership to Turkey. All that has been agreed is that Turks will have an easier time of things getting Visas to enter and work in the Schengen area in exchange for a rather bad deal over taking back immigrants who have passed through Turkey as a transition state. Turkey cannot join the EU because it fails to meet the criteria and will continue to fail to meet them for a very long time. There is no imminent prospect, therefore, of Turkish membership.
I expect them to be given a fast track entry in the near future, because Erdgan has them over a barrel. Turkey will join the EU eventually, and this will effectively move our boarder to the middle east. I will do all that I can to prevent that, and if voting to leave is what it takes then so be it.
The vote in the Netherlands was not a representation of the democratic will of the people. The turnout was a dismal 32%, of which 65% voted against the treaty with Ukraine. That's such a small percentage of the total population of the EU that it doesn't even register. How is it democratic for such a small percentage of the population to hold back an EU deal?
The Netherlands was the only country decent enough to ask it's people for their opinion. If we were given a say over the matter I'd have voted against it as well, as would everyone I've asked about it (currently in the high twenties). This is why the EU hates referendums. The last thing we need to do right now is get involved in the Ukraine's mess.
Fighting fire with fire never works and neither does capital punishment, but that's a debate for another thread ;).
The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU, as you say, so how is leaving the EU going to change anything? We'd still be bound by that court, unless we chose to leave that too.
I want capital punishment reinstated, and if leaving both the EU and the ECRH (two separate organisations yes but ones closely tied together) is what it takes to get it again so be it.
Do you think that the other member states would give us preferential deals and want to be nice to us if we were to leave? Again, this whole idea about power grabs and an avalanche of legislation cannot happen. I refer you to the ordinary legislative procedure I outlined above. Also, other member states would be against mass legislation, so where's your evidence that any of this is going to happen?
As for the deal being voted down in the European Parliament, they've already had the chance to do that, but did not do so. If there were to be any challenge, it would be far more likely to come from a member state, but again, there has already been an opportunity to do this.
They aren't making any moves until after the referendum. They know that voting down before the vote will favor the leave camp, so they'll just wait until after the vote before screwing us. And if we do stay, we will be pressured to join the Euro and Schengen. Ever closer union is in the constitution after all.
As for preferential treatment, we buy far more from other EU countries than they buy from us. We are the customer, and they're the shop. That gives us the advantage. If they start screwing around with us we can simply take our business elsewhere and leave them to sink in their own spite. I can't see Germany (the one's really in charge of the EU) accepting tariffs on all those cars they sell us. And being in the EU didn't stop Ford moving Transit production to Turkey either. I think it actually helped them to do that thanks to the mess of the Euro. I strongly believe that if things continue as they are the EU won't exist by the end of the decade anyway.
We'll survive, yes, but we will lose out on a whole raft of preferential deals. We will be isolated and adrift in the Atlantic pretending to be an influential country when we are not. We do not have the political influence to be independent. We are not a superpower. As for smaller countries doing better, I'm curious, could you give me some examples please?
In the EU we are only 1/28th a nation. Outside of it we're a whole nation. We'll take our seat at the WTO back and we'll trade like any other country in the world. It's not about being a superpower. It's just about being a sovereign national that makes it's own way in the world. The EU wants to trade with New Zealand and they're way smaller than us. Switzerland and Norway too do perfectly OK outside of the EU. As does Japan, South Korea, Australia etc. If the EU is such a good idea other regions would be looking to replicate it. But they aren't.
I would rather that Europe was made up of good neighbors rather than bad roommates, as it currently is now. Oh, and the EU is not Europe. Hopefully one day Europe will realize this.
Also, we give the EU a contribution, and they give us a bit of it back and tell us how to spend it. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just keep the money to begin with.
-
Yes it'll be harder in the short term but it's probably the only way they'll recover. Staying in the Euro is never going to repair the damage and they'll just linger in the limbo they're stuck in now. The financial event horizon has been crossed. Sure the national governments have to share their portion of the blame but the Euro has got to go.
Where's the certain evidence supporting this assessment and this claim? Removing the euro does not solve the problems at all, because the issues are far more complex than the currency and its regulation. They go far deeper into how individual nation states manage their economies. There is no silver bullet to solve the eurozone's economic problems and economic cycles mean that there's still a reasonable chance of the eurozone recovering in the longer term. Much depends on the markets and the actions of the member states.
I laugh too at how we're doing better than the other EU countries by namely staying out of the EU's key schemes (the Euro and the Schengen Area). From supporters of the pro EU side I've been told to my face that 'yes, the two corner stones of the whole EU project have been complete disasters, but at we still have to stay in the EU for their benefit and ours, and eventually we should join the Euro and Schengen Area too, to share the burden'. No thank you. :P
Equating the euro with Schengen is a strange comparison. Also, I'm pro-EU and I am explaining to you that neither has been a complete disaster. In fact, Schengen is anything but a disaster. It's not Schengen which has caused the influx of immigrants, it's the global situation, combined with the weak external border in a number of places, which are entirely separate problems.
I said in my previous post that the UK has opt outs from the euro and Schengen. What makes you think that the UK will be required to opt in? Our opt outs dates back to long before Cameron's deal. For what you're saying to be true, there needs to be evidence to support it. If you have any, by all means share it, so that we can discuss it. Based on my research though, the evidence is that the UK will maintains its opt outs from these two areas.
I expect them to be given a fast track entry in the near future, because Erdgan has them over a barrel. Turkey will join the EU eventually, and this will effectively move our boarder to the middle east. I will do all that I can to prevent that, and if voting to leave is what it takes then so be it.
Where's the evidence to support this assertion? Even if Turkey were to be admitted, and as I've said this is a very long way from ever happening, it would take years, if not decades, for it to be admitted, and it would have had to have reformed massively. Negotiations have been taking place on and off for a few decades now, with little progress being made, because the talks keep breaking down and are not resumed for long periods of time. Turkey is, therefore, a complete non-issue for this referendum.
Also, given that the UK is not in Schengen, how would it move our border to the Middle East? We still maintain our own border checks. I would be happy to see us join Schengen, so it wouldn't matter to me anyway; however, as I have said above, the UK is going to keep its opt-out, so there's no need to vote to leave the EU over Turkey or Schengen.
The Netherlands was the only country decent enough to ask it's people for their opinion. If we were given a say over the matter I'd have voted against it as well, as would everyone I've asked about it (currently in the high twenties). This is why the EU hates referendums. The last thing we need to do right now is get involved in the Ukraine's mess.
Referendums are a very ineffective method of testing public opinion, especially on complex issues, because the majority does not understand what they are voting for and vote without sufficient knowledge of the facts to make informed choice. How many of the people you asked know what was in the EU's treaty with the Ukraine? Do you know? What was it about? What was the substance behind it? How many of these same people understand how the EU works? Do they know how decisions are taken? Do they know about all the benefits the UK gets from membership? I venture to suggest that they, like the vast majority of the UK population has no idea about any of these things, and this is why EU member states (note that it's important to assign responsibility correctly) are reluctant to hold referendums related to the EU.
Also, even if the deal was the problem, voting to leave the EU doesn't solve anything. If you want the EU to set different priorities vote accordingly in the elections to the European Parliament. You can also hold national government to account via general elections here.
I want capital punishment reinstated, and if leaving both the EU and the ECRH (two separate organisations yes but ones closely tied together) is what it takes to get it again so be it.
You won't get that ghastly approach to justice reinstated by leaving either the EU or the ECHR. The mainstream opinion in this country is against it and so are the majority of politicians and those in the legal profession.
They aren't making any moves until after the referendum. They know that voting down before the vote will favor the leave camp, so they'll just wait until after the vote before screwing us. And if we do stay, we will be pressured to join the Euro and Schengen. Ever closer union is in the constitution after all.
There is no European Constitution. That was voted down in referendums held in France and the Netherlands in 2005. Ever closer union is in the treaties, yes, but as I keep saying to you the UK has opt outs. These opt outs are not going to be overturned. The claims you are making have no basis in reality. The UK secured opt outs from the euro when the Maastricht Treaty came into being and from Schengen when the Amsterdam Treaty was signed. These opt outs are still valid now.
Who is this mythical they who you keep referring to? You can only mean other member states, and they're far more likely to make life much more difficult for the UK in the event of a leave vote. There have been role-play decision-making exercises carried out on Radio 4's the World at One programme simulating what would happen in the event of either referendum result. This was a few months ago, so it's not still available on iplayer. The difficult nature of the negotiations facing the UK in the event of a leave vote were clear.
As for preferential treatment, we buy far more from other EU countries than they buy from us. We are the customer, and they're the shop. That gives us the advantage. If they start screwing around with us we can simply take our business elsewhere and leave them to sink in their own spite. I can't see Germany (the one's really in charge of the EU) accepting tariffs on all those cars they sell us. And being in the EU didn't stop Ford moving Transit production to Turkey either. I think it actually helped them to do that thanks to the mess of the Euro. I strongly believe that if things continue as they are the EU won't exist by the end of the decade anyway.
The stats from 2014 are as follows:
The EU accounts for 45% of UK goods and services exports and 53% of our imports. This is on page 13 of the document I linked to. This evidence shows that we do not by far more from them than they do from us, the percentages are very close. Also, the import figure had dropped to 51% a few years before 2014, so what you're saying is not supported by the facts. The analogy of the customer and shop is not correct either, so the UK does not have the sort of advantage which you believe it to possess.
How could the EU stop Ford moving production? You argue, on the one hand, that it interferes too much, yet now you're claiming it should intervene :P? Make your mind up ;).
You may have that belief, but again, where is the evidence to support that? One of the most important things in any sort of debate is to have evidence to back up your points, otherwise they seem very unrealistic. I just cannot see how you arrive at these conclusions.
In the EU we are only 1/28th a nation. Outside of it we're a whole nation. We'll take our seat at the WTO back and we'll trade like any other country in the world. It's not about being a superpower. It's just about being a sovereign national that makes it's own way in the world. The EU wants to trade with New Zealand and they're way smaller than us. Switzerland and Norway too do perfectly OK outside of the EU. As does Japan, South Korea, Australia etc. If the EU is such a good idea other regions would be looking to replicate it. But they aren't.
The UK still has its seat at the WTO. You can see that by looking at the following information:
WTO | European Union - Member information (https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm)
WTO | The United Kingdom - Member information (https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm)
EU member states sit as part of the EU delegation, but also as member states in their own right. Our seat was never taken away.
As for trading like any other country. Could you expand on that? There are lots of trading blocs and free trade areas around the world now. The WTO also exerts massive influence over trading and national governments have, in effect, pooled sovereignty in trade by being members of the WTO. Trade is not an exclusive competency of a nation state whether you're in the EU or not. Also, knowing that you're more to the right of the political spectrum, I'm confused by your position, because the EU's neo-liberal approach to trade would surely fit with your preferences, so I don't understand why you're against it.
Other regions replicate the idea of a trading bloc. Look at Mercosur and NAFTA, for example. Also, note that Norway is a member of the EEA which means it must abide by the EU's rules on the freedom of goods, services, and people, but has no say on the rules governing these because it is not a member of the EU. This would not be a good model for the UK to emulate, the Norwegians have even said that to us. You can also see that the Swiss model would be unsuitable for us to follow by reading the link I posted in my reply prior to this. Smaller countries can make different deals to us because they have smaller economies and smaller populations. They have very different circumstances to the UK.
I would rather that Europe was made up of good neighbors rather than bad roommates, as it currently is now. Oh, and the EU is not Europe. Hopefully one day Europe will realize this.
Relations between European states have been improved by membership of the EU. You've seen what they were like beforehand. Europe was a conflict ravaged land and not a pleasant place to be. The EU has made Europe what it is, and every other country is reminding us of this. Obama's speech was a passionate reminder of this.
Also, we give the EU a contribution, and they give us a bit of it back and tell us how to spend it. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just keep the money to begin with.
Yet, there's no evidence to indicate that this money would be spent appropriately at all. You may find Fullfact's analysis of the EU budget interesting: The UK's EU membership fee - Full Fact (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/). You may also find the European Parliaments breakdown of where the money goes equally interesting: Infographics (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20141202IFG82334/EU-budget-explained-expenditure-and-contribution-by-member-state). Select the UK and you can see for yourself.
Finally, did you read about the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland? Have you seen how serious the loss of income is likely to be?
-
After the recent leak on TTIP provided by Greenpeace, I'm voting to leave without hesitation. This shows the EU at its very worst. Coporate lobbying deciding policy, shady and hidden back room deals, no democratic transparency. To save the NHS we need to get out.
-
The US has already stated that the UK leaving the EU means they'll be treated the same as countries like India and China when it comes to tariffs and barriers. President Obama also stated that the UK would be at the bottom of the list when it comes to future trade negotiations.
You're blaming the EU for what's happening everywhere, corporate lobbying behind closed doors. The New Zealand version, TPP, has the same amphetamine parrot going on *without* any involvement of the EU. The overlap is the US, (un)funnily enough.
-
After the recent leak on TTIP provided by Greenpeace, I'm voting to leave without hesitation. This shows the EU at its very worst. Coporate lobbying deciding policy, shady and hidden back room deals, no democratic transparency. To save the NHS we need to get out.
I'm sure that Greenpeace leaked every aspect of the deal, including those which don't fit their narrative ;). Note that I'm not defending TTIP, as I said earlier in reply to Aurics Pride, I have issues with elements of it, but it would be even worse if the UK were to forge a bilateral trade deal with the US.
Outside of the EU, the public sector, which includes the NHS, runs significant risks. Again, if you take a look at the House of Commons Library report you'll see why. In summary though, the rights which workers have accrued over the years, which are supported by the trade unions, could be put in jeopardy. Take a look at page 51 for further details. In essence, this idea that leaving the EU somehow protects public sector workers of any kind is open to serious question and is dubious to say the least.
Specifically referring to the NHS, many decisions pertaining to healthcare are the competency of nation states. In addition, the areas in which there is pooled sovereignty regarding healthcare have been very positive for the UK. The UK has led the way in a number of areas associated with healthcare in the EU. Would you want the UK to lose that role?
Regarding, the point about the lobbying, as Rummy says, this happens everywhere. All national governments are subject to intense lobbying by all kinds of organisations. These include organisations which are shady, yes, but also those which are not, including Greenpeace by the way, so the very source you're quoting from lobbies national governments and EU institutions. As a result, I just cannot see why lobbying of the EU is wrong, yet you're seemingly happy for national governments to be lobbied.
Finally, we've talked about the issue of democratic transparency before, so I'll pose a question to you. Could you explain to me how the UK government is any more transport than the EU institutions? Blaming the EU institutions for something which happens all the time in national and local government in this country seems, to me, to be a rather odd position to adopt on your part.
-
Barry won't be the president for much longer though. It'll be a matter for whoever replaces him. I heard from another source that the UK might be first in line for a trade deal since it'll be quicker and easier to set up one with us as opposed to setting one up with the EU that can reconcile with all of the competing interests of the member states. That could take forever. So there's always that hope, however slim it is.
And quite frankly if this what the US has in mind for a trade deal then they can shove it up their arses sideways. :P
My point is, if our national government was to sign something like this into effect, they'd have to explain themselves to the electorate, who'd proably rip them a new arse and replace them with a government that would overturn it. But the EU doesn't have to explain itself to an electorate. It does whatever it wants.
I'm no fan of Greenpeace by the way. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-
Barry won't be the president for much longer though.
Hilary Clinton is likely to stick closely to the Obama line, and US companies really want to trade through TTIP with the EU. Realpolitik dictates that they will prioritise TTIP as a result. The UK will lose out if it is not part of the EU. TTIP will have some negative consequences and there will be problems in some areas, but they are far less significant than the problems the UK could have in international trade from sitting outside the EU.
I heard from another source that the UK might be first in line for a trade deal since it'll be quicker and easier to set up one with us as opposed to setting one up with the EU that can reconcile with all of the competing interests of the member states. That could take forever. So there's always that hope, however slim it is.
Which source? Would you like to share it with us?
My point is, if our national government was to sign something like this into effect, they'd have to explain themselves to the electorate, who'd proably rip them a new arse and replace them with a government that would overturn it. But the EU doesn't have to explain itself to an electorate. It does whatever it wants.
Yes, the EU does have to explain itself to the electorate, through all the national governments of the member states and the MEPs. Who do you think is driving this deal? It's the national governments. They want this. Also, it's very unlikely that any new government would overturn such a deal.
-
Barry won't be the president for much longer though. It'll be a matter for whoever replaces him. I heard from another source that the UK might be first in line for a trade deal since it'll be quicker and easier to set up one with us as opposed to setting one up with the EU that can reconcile with all of the competing interests of the member states. That could take forever. So there's always that hope, however slim it is.
Except they wouldn't need a trade deal with the EU, they'd already have one. The UK is the one that'd be negotiating from a measure of weakness as I highly doubt the terms would be similar to those already negotiated. Remember, these powers like to punish those who displease them so, IMHO, the EU would encourage the US to be hardline rather than forgiving. A lose/lose for the UK. That and do you really think your current government is going to do anything other than look out for their own interests? You mention being accountable with the electorate, how's that worked out for you so far? ;)
-
@ irisado
It was Ted Cruz who suggested that the UK could be first in line for a trade deal. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/ted-cruz-post-brexit-britain-would-be-at-front-of-the-line-for-t/)
Granted I highly doubt he'll win but it's one way to look at things.
@ Grim
Yeah it's true that the EU would encourage the US to be nasty with us out of spite. I wouldn't put it past them. I would only hope that we respond in kind against the EU. Tariffs on German cars springs to mind. After all, the Germans call the shots in the EU. ;)
-
Remember what I said about fighting fire with fire not working? The UK would be in no position to take counter measures, because we'd be outside the bloc which all other major countries are advising us to be part of, so getting involved in some kind of tariff war would make a bad situation caused by leaving even worse.
Turning to Cruz, I do love how the media loves to selectively quote. Here's what Obama actually said in full in relation to this issue:
Well, firsts of all, let me repeat, this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I’m offering my opinion. And in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less. And you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made. That's not a threat. That should enhance the debate.
Particularly because my understanding is that some of the folks on the other side have been ascribing to the United States certain actions we’ll take if the UK does leave the EU. So they say, for example, that, well, we’ll just cut our own trade deals with the United States. So they're voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do. I figured you might want to hear it from the President of the United States what I think the United States is going to do. (Laughter.)
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-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon, because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done, and the UK is going to be in the back of the queue -- not because we don't have a special relationship, but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries -- rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.
Note how he's not making any sort of threat there, he's just stating the case of realpolitik. Cruz can say what he likes in response, but like a lot of opposition leaders, they find themselves having much less freedom to change policy than they might have thought once they enter government, just ask Nick Clegg ;). Also, I very much doubt that Cruz has the slightest clue about how the EU actually works. It's not something that many US leaders really ever get to grips with. What has been consistently stated by previous Democrat and Republican presidents, however, is that they want the UK to stay in the EU. Remember that even Bush Jr was in favour of the UK being a member of the EU, despite the divisions and ructions caused by the Iraq War.
-
All I'm hearing is that we should stand just back and let the EU and the US dictate our policies, and pay for the privilege. Despite being one of the most powerful countries in the world in economic and military terms. I think it's sick that the US wants to foster on us, their best friends apparently, a political situation they would not except for themselves in a million years. When I see a North American Union, with the USA giving up its sovereignty to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean nations etc, then I'll take their advice to stay in the EU.
And as for the EU itself, they're happy to take our money in contributions but they don't want to hear us out on anything. We've been outvoted so many times. They are certainly not our friends, as their threats to us demonstrate. Being in the EU certainly doesn't stop Spain harassing the UK over Gibraltar for example. When the EU tells Spain to back off once and for all over the Rock then I'll believe that they're our friends.
And they are certainly not interested in meaningful reforms. Like I said before, Cameron went begging to them for scraps and to be perfectly honest, they pissed in his face. The evil Blair threw away most of our rebate in exchange for a vague promise of reform for the CAP which is yet to happen. And the chance to be a big highly paid player in the EU hierarchy no doubt. We're outvoted the most in the decision making despite all the money we fork over. And it's still not enough because they're always asking for more. Why the hell are we paying for this abuse?
I also think the EU is a bloated monstrosity of an organization. Justify to me the need to move the parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg every month. Why?
I'm voting to leave. Things will be tough if we do, but it'll be worth it in the end. The EU won't survive without us. They need us far more than we need them. Who else will pay the bills? Plus, the eventual goal of the EU is to fully assimilate its members in their entirety. Ever closer union after all. And I don't want that. Since they won't take no as an answer in regards to this, it's time to leave.
-
What have you been reading?
It's not a lot different than in the US. Some states contribute more in federal funding than they get back. These states get to accept laws and regulations passed by the federal government without a means of neutralising them.
You're not losing your sovereignty to any one. The US is making a trade agreement with the EU. It's not all pretty but it's not all nasty either. Some of the DRM material is the usual shade of ignorant but we're used to that from politicians. What exactly in the agreement is bothering you that it's a deal breaker for the UK?
We're outvoted the most in the decision making despite all the money we fork over.
That's kind of how it works. Would you rather that only the rich get to decide everything on their own? Pay per vote? Maybe a minimum net worth before being allowed to vote?
The EU can survive without the UK. It'll hurt them but not fatally. A 10-15% reduction in budget I'd guess.
-
Very briefly, TTIP threatens the NHS, one of the cornerstones of our country. That's the deal breaker for me.
-
Very briefly, TTIP threatens the NHS, one of the cornerstones of our country. That's the deal breaker for me.
How? Please go into more detail or link to it.
-
It's intention is to end state monopolies on heathcare. (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html) This would leave the NHS vulnerable to being gutted by US companies. This is just one of the problems with it though, as the article outlines.
-
I prefer this article as it doesn't have such a blatant click bait lead. A little more recent as well.
TTIP deal poses 'real and serious risk' to NHS, says leading QC | Business | The (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/22/ttip-deal-real-serious-risk-nhs-leading-qc)
Also this from last year: TTIP and the NHS - Full Fact (https://fullfact.org/europe/does-ttip-mean-privatisation-nhs/)
Ask yourself this, why would the EU do this to themselves, considering their vastly different approach to medical care than the US? No-one wants to duplicate that. Also look at the medical care in these countries. Why would they want to so significantly change them.
-
All I'm hearing is that we should stand just back and let the EU and the US dictate our policies, and pay for the privilege. Despite being one of the most powerful countries in the world in economic and military terms. I think it's sick that the US wants to foster on us, their best friends apparently, a political situation they would not except for themselves in a million years. When I see a North American Union, with the USA giving up its sovereignty to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean nations etc, then I'll take their advice to stay in the EU.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, is a superpower, and is much larger than the UK geographically as well. Taking all those factors together and you can see why it would never be part of the union in the same way as the UK is part of the EU. In fact, the US is already a type of union, because it's made up of states remember. As a result, trying to compare the UK with the US in terms of membership of a political union is like comparing apples with oranges, it just doesn't work.
Saying that the UK is one of the most powerful countries in the world might sound impressive on paper, but in reality it doesn't amount to much. The United States and China are way ahead, and while the UK is fifth, it is barely ahead of other major players in the EU. Take a look at the statistics to see the evidence: World Economic League Table 2015 | Centre for Economics and Business Research (http://www.cebr.com/reports/world-economic-league-table-2015/). As you can see the UK is behind Germany, and only fractionally ahead of France and Italy. The UK's economy is not strong enough to go it alone. Indeed, opinion poll data shows that the economy is Brexit's weakest argument and the strongest argument for the Stronger In campaign.
In terms of military forces, spending on defence in the UK is falling and the size of the military is shrinking. The UK learnt the hard way that it had lost any semblance of hard power during the Suez crisis. Outside of NATO and the EU, the UK has no military power whatsoever and cannot take action alone. The US, the UK's major partner on international security, wants the UK to remain in the EU to take the lead on security and defence issues there.
What you're claiming is, therefore, not supported by the evidence.
And as for the EU itself, they're happy to take our money in contributions but they don't want to hear us out on anything. We've been outvoted so many times. They are certainly not our friends, as their threats to us demonstrate. Being in the EU certainly doesn't stop Spain harassing the UK over Gibraltar for example. When the EU tells Spain to back off once and for all over the Rock then I'll believe that they're our friends.
My research area is Spain, including Anglo-Spanish relations, so I can assure you that the Spain does not 'harass the UK' about Gibraltar ;). Having interviewed various former ambassadors from this country to Spain, it's true that Gibraltar represents a stumbling block at times in the relationship, but the leadership of Gibraltar often brings this on themselves by refusing to compromise over many issues when the UK government tries to make a deal with Spain. Spain does want Gibraltar back, and sometimes does play games regarding the border, but, for the most part, relations are cordial, even if they are not warm, thanks to the EU acting as a constraint on Spain.
Also, the whole issue of Gibraltar isn't really an EU matter to resolve. It's a bilateral issue between Spain and the UK, so trying to somehow say that this is all the EU's responsibility does not accurate represent the reality of the situation.
For more information, take a look at this: What does Gibraltar think about Brexit? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35743731). Gibraltar wants the UK to remain in the EU as it's so strongly integrated with the continent.
As for being outvoted, that's democracy for you. What's the problem with that? Are you going to argue that every time a vote does not go the way in which you want at Westminster or the Northern Ireland assembly that this is wrong too?
And they are certainly not interested in meaningful reforms. Like I said before, Cameron went begging to them for scraps and to be perfectly honest, they pissed in his face. The evil Blair threw away most of our rebate in exchange for a vague promise of reform for the CAP which is yet to happen. And the chance to be a big highly paid player in the EU hierarchy no doubt. We're outvoted the most in the decision making despite all the money we fork over. And it's still not enough because they're always asking for more. Why the hell are we paying for this abuse?
What's your evidence for claiming that the EU is not interested in meaningful reform? What is meaningful reform anyway? It's a very subjective term.
He didn't go begging, but yes they were annoyed with him trying to get a deal at a time when the EU faced, and still faces, much bigger issues than the UK. The distraction of sorting out that deal when the euro and immigration issues needed to be the focus of attention was, understandably, very frustrating for other EU leaders, but they still sat down and negotiated for hours, including over night. That says a lot about the strengths of the EU, and the fact that while they might find the behaviour of the UK frustrating, they want us to stay.
Blair did not throw away most of the UK's rebate. The UK still receive £5 billion rebate every year, and do you know who pays for that? The other EU member states.
CAP needs to be reformed, and many member states agree with the UK on this. The major problem there is France, which keeps blocking CAP reform, but small steps have been made over time. The only way to keep making progress on this is to remain in the EU and fight for change. The NFU in this country backs remaining in the EU, because without EU subsidies the UK farming industry would be in serious trouble.
Are you arguing that money should buy votes? That would be more than a little corrupt don't you think ;)?
In terms of contributions, Germany is, by far, the largest contributor to the EU, and, depending on which statistics you look at, France pays more than the UK does too. As the fifth largest economy though, it is right that the UK is in the top three contributors to the EU.
The EU budget has been getting smaller every year for the last few years, thanks to the UK leading the agenda on cutting the EU budget. That rather flies in the face of the claim that the UK is never listened to. In addition, what the Commission asks for in terms of a budget has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and this also often ends up reducing the size of the EU budget.
I also think the EU is a bloated monstrosity of an organization. Justify to me the need to move the parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg every month. Why?
You might think that, but it's factually incorrect. The EU's bureaucracy (civil service) is smaller than that of one UK government department. The only reason you think it's big is because certain media sources portray it that way to suit their own ends. It's a very lean organisation in lots of ways, so don't let the media fool you :).
The MEPs would rather that they didn't move from Brussels to Strasbourg, and it would make much more sense to stay in Brussels. The reason why they moe comes down to French prestige and history. Again, the only way to sort this out is to keep pressing for reform, not to pull up the drawbridge.
I'm voting to leave. Things will be tough if we do, but it'll be worth it in the end. The EU won't survive without us. They need us far more than we need them. Who else will pay the bills? Plus, the eventual goal of the EU is to fully assimilate its members in their entirety. Ever closer union after all. And I don't want that. Since they won't take no as an answer in regards to this, it's time to leave.
The EU would survive without the UK.
The EU budget is far more complex that you are claiming and to imply that the UK pays all the bills is completely inaccurate and not supported at all by the facts.
The EU is not the Borg from Star Trek ;). Ever closer union does not mean assimilation.
Very briefly, TTIP threatens the NHS, one of the cornerstones of our country. That's the deal breaker for me.
See the Full Fact link that Rummy gave you. It's very good and highlights just how much uncertainty you would be basing this decision on. Negotiations are ongoing, nothing has been set in stone, and the only way to influence the outcome is to stay at the negotiating table and to be involved. The alternative, as I have discussed in previous posts with you is even more privatisation via a lengthy and delayed deal with the US, or national government will privatise the NHS in some areas itself, both Labour and the Conservatives have already done so, in fact. On that basis, I would argue that the NHS is no safer left in the hands of national government.
The evidence presented shows that all the reasons you are arguing to leave the EU are not supported by the facts or by the majority of the evidence. I really find it very difficult to understand how you can take a decision to leave when the points you're making are not representative of the reality of the situations. In a referendum of such immense significance, decisions must be taken by the head (i.e. fact and evidence based), not the heart (emotion based).
-
Speaking of Gibraltar:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/world/europe/gibraltar-brexit-vote.html?ref=europe&smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/world/europe/gibraltar-brexit-vote.html?ref=europe&smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=0)
-
Today six Algerian terrorists (one who personally murdered a cop 13 years ago) won the right to stay in the UK because deporting them would violate their human rights. So now we have to let them stay here and plot God knows what against us whilst spending a fortune housing them in prison or keeping them under surveillance.
Things like this are another reason why I'm voting to leave. If we didn't have the human rights act chaining us to the European Court Of Human Rights, we could kick them out of the country pronto and be safe from them forever. Hell, if I had my way, the murderer would have been hung by the neck until dead and thus he wouldn't pose a threat to anyone anymore, so there would be no need to deport him.
But whilst we're in the EU we have to be in the ECHR as well, and accept these bullamphetamine parrot decisions. We can't leave the later whilst we're in the former. So I want to get out of the EU so that we can get out of the ECHR as well.
-
Welcome to the Rule of Law. Just because you don't like someone doesn't remove certain protections that *everyone* is supposed to have, In this case, you shouldn't deport people to places where they're going to get tortured. The Human Rights Act is a good thing. It should protect everyone, including people you don't like. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a high court of the UK. They made the decision. After ten years of back and forth. Also, the decision came weeks ago.
Since you didn't link to anything I presume you mean these (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/04/18/bid-deport-six-terror-suspects-blocked-uk-judges-cite-torture-fears-algeria/) guys. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/07/judges-stop-theresa-may-deporting-terror-suspects/)Money quote: None of the men have ever been convicted of terror offences in the UK.
Please stop blaming the EU for *every* single thing that vexes you. ::)
-
Yes, the Human Rights Act is a good thing. It's a good thing for terrorists, murders, rapists and human rights lawyers. All stand to gain a lot from it.
And since the EU is behind a lot of things that vex me, of course I'm going to blame it. :P
And I do get vexed when I'm told repeatedly by the remain camp that the UK is too small, too weak and too pathetic to go it alone. It only strengthens my resolve to vote to leave, to prove those who call this country weak wrong.
-
Listen to what you're saying. Really. Mate, you're really strawmanning hard these days.
And I do get vexed when I'm told repeatedly by the remain camp that the UK is too small, too weak and too pathetic to go it alone. It only strengthens my resolve to vote to leave, to prove those who call this country weak wrong.
Nope. The idea is that the UK is better in the EU, not that it can't survive without it. Same as the EU could survive without the UK but is better with it as well.
Your vote is yours to decide. You don't need to justify it. Yet, please pick better arguments than the ones we've shown to be false. When you vote for exit then that's all good as it's your decision. Don't try and lipstick the pig with illusions.
-
Today six Algerian terrorists (one who personally murdered a cop 13 years ago) won the right to stay in the UK because deporting them would violate their human rights. So now we have to let them stay here and plot God knows what against us whilst spending a fortune housing them in prison or keeping them under surveillance.
They're being monitored by the authorities under highly controlled bail conditions. They're not going to be able to do anything. Also, they have not been convicted, so it's important to get the facts right. This story only makes the headlines on a Google search in three papers, The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Sun. That should tell you something Tangi ;).
As for the costs of keeping people in prison, consider how many UK citizens are held in jails and compare that to the number of non-UK nationals and you'll soon find out where all the money goes, and it's not on foreign criminals.
Things like this are another reason why I'm voting to leave. If we didn't have the human rights act chaining us to the European Court Of Human Rights, we could kick them out of the country pronto and be safe from them forever. Hell, if I had my way, the murderer would have been hung by the neck until dead and thus he wouldn't pose a threat to anyone anymore, so there would be no need to deport him.
The Humans Rights Act is not EU legislation. Leaving the EU will not take us out of the Convention of European Rights. Your argument just is illogical on that basis.
This eye for an eye thing you have doesn't work. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland, you've seen how that approach failed to achieve anything for all the paramilitaries for decades. It was a never ending cycle of killing. In addition, the democracies of the West are, supposedly, meant to have a higher standard of justice than the rest of the world. If the UK returned to the bad old days of capital punishment or endorsing vigilantes, how would we be setting any sort of example to other nations? Such an approach belongs in the Dark Ages, so let it stay there.
This wasn't an EU decision either. Yes, the decision was taken with respect to the UK's EU membership and the Convention on Human Rights, but it was taken within the UK as Rummy highlighted. Furthermore, if you don't like what's in the European Convention on Human Rights, why not lobby your MP to get it changed? British MPs sit on the Council of Europe. If you feel that strongly about something, why not try arguing for change, rather than just arguing that the UK should withdraw?
But whilst we're in the EU we have to be in the ECHR as well, and accept these bullamphetamine parrot decisions. We can't leave the later whilst we're in the former. So I want to get out of the EU so that we can get out of the ECHR as well.
So, you want the UK to leave the Council of Europe too? The Council of Europe, which has nothing to do with the EU, is the intergovernmental body connected to the ECHR.
Isolationism doesn't work. The UK can only make positive contributions through constructive active engagement. This has been the policy ever since the end of the British Empire, and it has worked very well.
Yes, the Human Rights Act is a good thing. It's a good thing for terrorists, murders, rapists and human rights lawyers. All stand to gain a lot from it.
And since the EU is behind a lot of things that vex me, of course I'm going to blame it. :P
And I do get vexed when I'm told repeatedly by the remain camp that the UK is too small, too weak and too pathetic to go it alone. It only strengthens my resolve to vote to leave, to prove those who call this country weak wrong.
The Human Rights Act is a very good thing, because it stops UK governments from behaving like those governments they criticise for human rights abuses. If these men were sent back with the full knowledge that they would be mistreated, that would reflect extremely negatively on the UK. In order to reproach other countries for human rights abuses, these rights have to be upheld. That's what the Convention is for.
The EU does very little to you. What you do not like is the decisions that national governments come to at the EU. That's different. I strongly encourage you to be more specific when you're discussing these issues.
Could you link me to a source where anyone in the Remain camp has said that the UK is pathetic? I haven't heard that word being used. Also, you're distorting the rest of the argument. Nobody has said that the UK cannot go it alone, because it's not an impossibility. What people have said is that the UK will lose economic clout, influence, and prestige to name but three and will be weaker on the world stage as a result. That is not the same thing as what you're claiming.
By voting to leave, you won't prove anyone wrong on this subject, because no matter how much you try, people who wanted to remain are never going to be convinced by that argument.
As you keep mentioning all the supposed terrible things that the EU does to us, I'm going to write a short list of the things that we have got out of the EU, aside from the well documented economic benefits, for the benefit of those reading this. These benefits include:
- Reduced roaming charges (soon to be scrapped)
- Low cost air travel
- Improved rights for workers, including rights to annual leave, rights for agency and part-time workers, anti-discrimination legislation, paternity, maternity, an parental leave, and fixed-term worker rights.
- EHIC card - free basic healthcare in any EU state.
- Cheaper and more easily arrangeable insurance when going abroad.
- The right for UK citizens to work in any EU member state.
- Research funding for UK universities (UK universities receive the largest amount of EU funding of all EU countries)
- Enhanced environmental regulations, such as cleaner air, beaches, and water.
- Consumer rights.
These are just some of the benefits the UK has obtained from its EU membership. Leaving puts of all these in jeopardy, with no guarantees at all about anything of them remaining in place of being renegotiated.
-
A couple of weeks out now and I was *greatly* amused to see people complain that extending the voter registration period was seen as undemocratic. Indeed, how dare they want more people to be able to vote. It's just not cricket.
-
It's mostly leave campaigners who have complained about this, since the majority of those affected by the server crash in the hours leading up to the deadline were younger people, who are more likely to vote remain.
The whole debate about immigration has become very toxic now, and it's this above anything else that's really disturbing. Some of the politicians backing leave are starting to sound like Trump with some of the things they have been saying, notably Farage and Boris Johnson, while the unofficial leave group had to delete a very offensive remark regarding remaining in the EU leading to an Orlando style attack in the UK.
While the remain group has been exaggerating some of the possible economic crises in the event of a Brexit, they are trying to stick to more pragmatic arguments where possible. The trouble is the internal war in the Conservative Party, combined with this extremely unpleasant diatribe about immigration from Vote Leave, is drowning out sensible debate at the moment.
-
Yes, I saw that advert. Blaming open borders kind of misses the point when the culprit was actually born in the country. Don't worry, Trump got that one wrong as well. ::)
I thought the UK got an opt-out from open borders?
-
It does have an opt out from Schengen. The spurious claim being made by Vote Leave that Turks will come here in their millions is entirely wrong because of this. The deal which Germany forged with Turkey allowing a limited period of visa free travel to the EU only applies to Schengen countries.
-
That's what I thought. As it appears that other countries, like Switzerland, that wanted access to the single market had to opt-in as part of the deal. Not exactly what the Leave people would call a win/win.
-
It does have an opt out from Schengen. The spurious claim being made by Vote Leave that Turks will come here in their millions is entirely wrong because of this. The deal which Germany forged with Turkey allowing a limited period of visa free travel to the EU only applies to Schengen countries.
Do the other Schengen countries get a say in that matter or is Germany calling all the shots?
-
Other countries have had a say as have the European institutions. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Turkey complies with the deal, while the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament had to vote on it. Alterations were made, following objections raised by Cyprus, so while it was a German led initiative, it still had to follow proper decision-making procedures.
-
And if other Schengen countries flat out objected to the deal, that would be the end of it right? Or would it be another case of 'I hear what you're saying but we're doing it anyway' from the EU?
-
Think of it like the US. Representatives of the states draft a bill and debate its contents. Amendments and revisions are made as issues are bought up. Once the final draft has been completed a vote is taken and, if it passes, then the law/act applies to everyone.
If 49 state's worth of representatives agree and 1 does not, the law/act still applies.
-
Ah, so a state within the EU must accept the bill even if it was dead set against it. As opposed to one outside of the EU who wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
So much for having more influence on the inside.
-
And if other Schengen countries flat out objected to the deal, that would be the end of it right? Or would it be another case of 'I hear what you're saying but we're doing it anyway' from the EU?
The deal was agreed by consensus in the Council of Ministers and by a vote in the European Parliament. It would have been possible to vote on the issue in the Council of Ministers too, but they prefer to take decisions by consensus and avoid taking votes.
In theory, the deal could have been stopped if enough MEPs had voted against it, or enough member states had failed to back it via QMV (such a deal may even have come under the veto procedure, I'd have to check, in which case one member state could have stopped it). The majority of MEPs backed the deal though, and the member states agreed to it through negotiating a consensus.
Ah, so a state within the EU must accept the bill even if it was dead set against it. As opposed to one outside of the EU who wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
So much for having more influence on the inside.
In view of my explanation above, how is what you've concluded correct? No member state was dead set against it, so the point is moot.
The influence came from negotiating. Cyprus didn't like some aspects of the deal, so by negotiating with the other EU member states managed to improve the deal to the satisfaction of its government, thus enabling agreement to be reached. That's democracy in action. It also demonstrates the influence that member states have within the EU.
It may not be the type of confrontational politics you're used to at Westminster, but European institutions do not operate in that way. It is still, however, a democratic process.
-
Tangi - You're not reading what I wrote. The influence on the inside is being part of the drafts and revisions. Same with the vote. Look at general elections, if 95% of the country votes one way and 5% are dead against it, what happens?
It gets even more extreme when it comes to expanding the EU as *every* single EU government has a veto as policy fields are closed.
-
Ok, fair points. Although if the people of these countries don't like what's been done and vote in governments that want to undo the agreement that will be acceptable right?
And isn't it true that if Merkal's Germany didn't act unilaterally in the beginning we won't be in this mess in the first place right? When is she going to be punished for ripping up the Dublin regulation?
-
She did no such thing.
Under the Dublin Regulation, a Member State may make use of the "sovereignty clause" to voluntarily assume responsibility for processing asylum applications for which it is not otherwise responsible under the criteria of the Regulation.
Where do you get your information?
There are means and process for countries to withdraw from treaties and agreements. However, the EU isn't an à la carte operation. You don't get to pick and choose what you like after you helped organise the pre fixe banquet. Which is why we have this Referendum to quit the whole meal deal and try and order something different later on.
-
Ok, fair points. Although if the people of these countries don't like what's been done and vote in governments that want to undo the agreement that will be acceptable right?
By the time that's even a possibility, the agreement will have run its course. It's a temporary deal. Any new deal would have to agreed again. As a result, changes of government could result in different outcomes, yes.
And isn't it true that if Merkal's Germany didn't act unilaterally in the beginning we won't be in this mess in the first place right? When is she going to be punished for ripping up the Dublin regulation?
As Rummy says, it's not true. It's also worth noting that the number of refugees coming to the EU from a rather wide range of countries is not the result of German policy.
The Dublin regulation was suspended by Germany for Syrian refugees, so that they would not be returned to the EU country in which they first arrived to be processed.. It was not 'torn up'. It still exists. The problem is that it has had implementation problems for a number of years now in multiple member states, and is considered discriminatory in some cases. It was always an imperfect system to regulate a very complex problem.
In addition, Hungary stopped applying the key element of the Dublin regulation requiring that applicants be processed in the first EU country in which they arrived before Germany adopted that policy.
-
Ok. I've come to this party late. I will say from the off that I have only a passing interest in politics. I read around subjects that interest me, but in general, as I have no actual say, I don't get very invested. Of course, the EU referendum is one of those occasions when my voice carries a tiny amount of weight and, as such, I am trying to make a well informed decision.
A well informed decision you say? Pretty difficult when the campaigns put out have been so incredibly negative that they have regressed into scare mongering from both sides. Well, that's why we have sites like this, dedicated to painting and fighting with little plastic men, so that mugs like me can get receive balanced views that allow me to become well informed on socio-political topics...
In all seriousness, I am absolutely on the fence on this one. I was probably 60-40 Remain, until a very clever chap I know and respect had a chat with me at the weekend and pushed an interesting pamphlet my way that looks at the way the EU works and the UK's position within it. This has pushed me towards a proper 50-50 don't know what to think position. Hopefully, the well informed folks on here (Irisado, I'm looking at you), can clear up a few things for me. These are just things that have popped into my head, and have no real order to them.
1. Trade Agreements.
If we leave the EU, we will have to negotiate new trade agreements. The Remain campaign suggests this will be difficult, the Brexiteers suggest otherwise. In 2014, the UK exported £230 Billion in goods to the EU. We imported £289 Billion. Surely it would be more important for the EU to organise a trade deal that is of benefit to both, considering we are net importers of goods? Or am I being incredibly naive?
And if we leave, will we not be able to negotiate our own deals with other markets such as India and Australia? Areas which we trade with, yet the EU has been slow to negotiate with...
2. The Membership Fee.
Depending on who you listen to, we pay somewhere in the order of 17-23 Million per day to be a member of the EU (After rebates funding agriculture, regional investment, investment in EU backed projects and the like). That makes us a net contributor, along with Germany, which, as I understand it, makes us the only 2 of 26 EU contributors that give more than we take.
I know that we get a lot of stuff funded by the EU...but surely if we're giving out more than we get back, we could just redistribute our membership fee to all the avenues that are currently funded and still have money left over for politicians to fund Duck Houses and the like? I appreciate that there will be additional layers of bureaucratic bullamphetamine parrot that bleed away some of this money by setting up think tanks and other stuff to determine where the money will go...but not to the tune of 17-23 million surely??
3. Professional workers from the EU working in Britain.
If we leave...where do all the nurses come from? And doctors, and any other skilled job which we have had to outsource for a very long time? I'm not trying to be flippant here, but we have something to be very proud of in the NHS, and if we suddenly cut off the source of a lot of those professionals that help make it work, where will it be in the future?
4. UK influence within the EU.
I read a statistic that "Since majority voting was introduced in the late 1980s, the UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal seventy times - and lost all seventy votes.". This would suggest that the UK has no real influence within the EU.
Furthermore, because the EU gets just 1 seat in the World Trade Organisation, the UK effectively gets just a small percentage of that representation. Which seems to me fairly counterintuitive for the 5th largest economy in the world...
5. The EU's view on its own rules.
Article 125 of the EU treaty expressly prohibits the bailing out financially of member states. Indeed, if my research is correct, it was one of the key points required by Germany before they agreed to the Euro.
And yet bailouts have occurred. If the EU is so willing on breaking their own rules...well, are any of the rules they have written sacrosanct, or are they able to tear them up whenever the mood allows?
Those are my starters. I know that the questions sound as though I'm a big Eurosceptic - I'm not. I believe that things such as working hours directives, workplace safety, et al are shining examples of good things that the EU has given us. That said, I doubt that we would just tear up all of the good that the EU has given us the second we leave...or at least, I would hope not!
I think my biggest problem with this referendum is that I am being asked to vote at all.
I fly planes for a living. I play sports. I'm a big fan of gaming - both video games and wargames. I've got a couple of cats, a wife and a child. Not one element of any of that makes me an expert on the EU and the UK's involvement within it. I've done a little bit of reading to make myself more aware, but I still seem to be wading through a sea of conflicting reports.
I've actually shown a modicum of interest though, which isn't necessarily true of all those being asked to vote on 23 June.
I fear that this referendum will be decided on, frankly, fairly trivial points - or at worst, totally misguided points:
"We need to get rid of the foreigners coming over and stealing our jobs" (Ah, Schrodinger's Immigrant. The one that simultaneously steals your jobs while claiming full job seekers allowance...
Will I have to pay more for my holiday to the South of France?
I don't want straight bananas.
Yup. One of the most important decisions that this generation will have to make may be influenced by the curvature of a banana...and that is fundamentally wrong. A decision of this import, of this magnitude, should be made by learned people that have studied all aspects (away from the grasping of lobbyists).
The fact that this decision has come down to a referendum smacks of nothing more than leadership by abdication.
Thank you for your time, sorry for the length!
-
Ok. I've come to this party late. I will say from the off that I have only a passing interest in politics. I read around subjects that interest me, but in general, as I have no actual say, I don't get very invested. Of course, the EU referendum is one of those occasions when my voice carries a tiny amount of weight and, as such, I am trying to make a well informed decision.
First, it's great that you want to make an informed decision :). Second, because the vote is expected to be close and is much more important than even any general election vote, your voice will carry a lot more weight than you might think.
A well informed decision you say? Pretty difficult when the campaigns put out have been so incredibly negative that they have regressed into scare mongering from both sides.
The campaign hasn't been very good at all to be honest. There are some places out there where you can find more informed and reliable information though. The EU referendum reality check that the BBC has made is good, for example.
1. Trade Agreements.
If we leave the EU, we will have to negotiate new trade agreements. The Remain campaign suggests this will be difficult, the Brexiteers suggest otherwise. In 2014, the UK exported £230 Billion in goods to the EU. We imported £289 Billion. Surely it would be more important for the EU to organise a trade deal that is of benefit to both, considering we are net importers of goods? Or am I being incredibly naive?
And if we leave, will we not be able to negotiate our own deals with other markets such as India and Australia? Areas which we trade with, yet the EU has been slow to negotiate with...
It is very difficult to negotiate trade deals. For Leave campaigners to suggest that countries would be queuing up to negotiate with the UK in the event of a Brexit is misleading to say the least.
To take the two countries you've given as examples, they are both on the record as saying that they want us to stay in the EU, and that despite being Commonwealth countries, they would not treat the UK as a special case in the event of a Brexit. The Commonwealth has moved on since the end of the British Empire and they want to do the best deals for them not the best deals for Britain. That means negotiating with the largest trading blocs, which would not be an isolated UK.
There is also the question of TTIP. The Americans are prioritising this deal with the EU, so in the event of a Brexit, the UK is going to lose out through not being a part of this. There is also the concern that the worst neo-liberal aspects of this trade deal could be much worse for the UK if it were to negotiate its own bilateral deal along similar lines, and such a deal would take significant time to be completed too, owing to the US not prioritising it.
The numbers regarding the EU/UK exports and imports are correct, but even if the UK were to establish bilateral deals with every EU state, consider how much time this could take and how damaging this could be to UK exports. The EU is the UK's highest recipient of exports (45%), so it would be a negative outcome for all sides if the UK were to leave the EU.
2. The Membership Fee.
Depending on who you listen to, we pay somewhere in the order of 17-23 Million per day to be a member of the EU (After rebates funding agriculture, regional investment, investment in EU backed projects and the like). That makes us a net contributor, along with Germany, which, as I understand it, makes us the only 2 of 26 EU contributors that give more than we take.
I know that we get a lot of stuff funded by the EU...but surely if we're giving out more than we get back, we could just redistribute our membership fee to all the avenues that are currently funded and still have money left over for politicians to fund Duck Houses and the like? I appreciate that there will be additional layers of bureaucratic bullamphetamine parrot that bleed away some of this money by setting up think tanks and other stuff to determine where the money will go...but not to the tune of 17-23 million surely??
There are other countries which are net contributors too, notably France.
The only truly reliable figure about the UK's contribution to the EU budget (it's not really a membership fee) is £8.5 billion net per year. That is actually a very small amount of money. For example, the budget for the NHS in this country alone for 2015/16 is £116 billion (the King's Fund is the source for this). The EU budget is smaller than that of government departments, and the idea that there's plenty of it to be spent on other areas isn't correct.
Also, there's a very good paper written by an excellent LSE professor on EU contributions here: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf (http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Who-pays-for-the-EU-and-how-much-does-it-cost-the-UK-Disentangling-fact-from-fiction-in-the-EU-Budget-Professor-Iain-Begg.pdf).
It's very short and he explains it better than I can.
The EU ensures that the money it invests in this country is spent appropriately. Without that oversight, the government of the day could spent the money however it wishes. Would it really direct this into the areas which will lose out? Higher education and farming (two sectors which would lose the most) have been poorly funded by successive governments for years. There is no evidence that this is going to change.
A prominent leave campaigner, Conservative MP, chair of the Health Select Committee, and former GP Sarah Woollaston quit the leave campaign because Vote Leave were using the wrong figures and making false claims about how they could spend money from our contribution to the EU budget on the NHS.
Also, Brexit is in no position to say how it would spend money because it's not running the government, Cameron and Osborne are.
In essence, the amount of money put into the EU budget is small, in relative terms, and could not be used to plug all the gaps that leaving the EU would cause in the way that Brexit is suggesting.
3. Professional workers from the EU working in Britain.
If we leave...where do all the nurses come from? And doctors, and any other skilled job which we have had to outsource for a very long time? I'm not trying to be flippant here, but we have something to be very proud of in the NHS, and if we suddenly cut off the source of a lot of those professionals that help make it work, where will it be in the future?
Quite.
There is a benefit to this country from economic migrants from within and outside the EU. The NHS has been one of the sectors which had to recruit from within and outside the EU because there are not enough people in this country who wish to work in the NHS.
4. UK influence within the EU.
I read a statistic that "Since majority voting was introduced in the late 1980s, the UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal seventy times - and lost all seventy votes.". This would suggest that the UK has no real influence within the EU.
Furthermore, because the EU gets just 1 seat in the World Trade Organisation, the UK effectively gets just a small percentage of that representation. Which seems to me fairly counterintuitive for the 5th largest economy in the world...
Where has that statistic come from just out of interest?
The key point about EU decision-making is that discussing votes in the Council of Ministers is a flawed proposition because they rarely take them. As I alluded to in a reply to Tangi above, their approach, in the vast majority of cases, is to reach a consensus without even taking a vote, even though they have the option to do so.
If you were to look at the sheer number of pieces of legislation, amendments, and all other matters which require 'a vote' on the different configurations of the Council of Ministers (there are different configurations for each policy area, e.g. one for finance, one for the environment, and so on, a bit like House of Commons Select Committees if you want a comparison to the UK system, but with much more power than House of Commons committees), even if the UK has lost seventy votes, it will have been on the 'winning side' of votes in thousands of cases.
The UK still has its own seat within the EU bloc on the WTO, so it's a bit of a red herring to go down that route, especially when you consider that one reason why the EU member states sit as one group is because the EU bloc has considerably more weight than a single EU member state. You only need look up the whole US versus EU tariff issues which have been taken to the WTO on a number of issues over the years.
5. The EU's view on its own rules.
Article 125 of the EU treaty expressly prohibits the bailing out financially of member states. Indeed, if my research is correct, it was one of the key points required by Germany before they agreed to the Euro.
And yet bailouts have occurred. If the EU is so willing on breaking their own rules...well, are any of the rules they have written sacrosanct, or are they able to tear them up whenever the mood allows?
Here is the clause 2 from article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty:
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.
This gives some freedom of manoeuvre when applying article 125, and it was this that was utilised to allow for bailouts. A very interesting blog post discussing this and the ECJ's court ruling on the matter can be found here (http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1257).
That said, I doubt that we would just tear up all of the good that the EU has given us the second we leave...or at least, I would hope not!
My response to this is opinion based. My view is that Boris Johnson, who has joined the leave camp solely to further his own interests by effectively setting himself up to challenge David Cameron for the leadership, would remove such regulations and protections without a second thought. He is much more of a neo-liberal than the current Conservative government is, and he would not be interested in any state led protections for people at all.
I think my biggest problem with this referendum is that I am being asked to vote at all.
Yes, I agree, and you are not alone with this view. The referendum should not be happening at all, because the majority of people know too little about the EU to make an informed decision and either have insufficient time or insufficient will to learn enough about it to come to an informed position.
I fear that this referendum will be decided on, frankly, fairly trivial points - or at worst, totally misguided points:
It could well be, and that's a very worrying prospect.
I don't want straight bananas.
Yup. One of the most important decisions that this generation will have to make may be influenced by the curvature of a banana...and that is fundamentally wrong. A decision of this import, of this magnitude, should be made by learned people that have studied all aspects (away from the grasping of lobbyists).
A fun fact for you. The EU directive on bananas never said that they should be straight or sold in bunches of three (which shows you the last time Boris Johnson went shopping for bananas :D). Even better, it was repealed a number of years ago, so doesn't even exist any more. The EU has been cutting back on unnecessary directives for some time now. It's just that the leave campaign don't like to tell anyone that.
-
The 70 vote thing is from a Daniel Hannan (MEP) book called "Why Vote Leave."
The number is surprising as since 1999 the UK has been outvoted 56 times while being on the winning ballot 2,466 times. I suspect a highly cherry picked process to get the 70 votes while completely ignoring the successes.
-
That explains it. He is highly biased against the EU, so he will definitely have cherry picked and distorted the information to make it suit his argument, rather than to report the truth of how it actually works.
-
The book itself is available on Google Books if anyone wants to read it. I read the first chapter and it reads like a chain of consciousness rather than anything I found interesting.
-
1. Trade Agreements.
If we leave the EU, we will have to negotiate new trade agreements. The Remain campaign suggests this will be difficult, the Brexiteers suggest otherwise. In 2014, the UK exported £230 Billion in goods to the EU. We imported £289 Billion. Surely it would be more important for the EU to organise a trade deal that is of benefit to both, considering we are net importers of goods? Or am I being incredibly naive?
And if we leave, will we not be able to negotiate our own deals with other markets such as India and Australia? Areas which we trade with, yet the EU has been slow to negotiate with...
Exactly. We buy more off of them. We are a consumer, and they are the supplier. It's in their interest to work with us. If the EU wanted to spite us for leaving then they'll be cutting our their noses to do so. And it's easier for countries to do deals one on one. Trying to negotiate a one size fits all deal with 28 different countries with conflicting interests and demands is slow and time consuming.
2. The Membership Fee.
Depending on who you listen to, we pay somewhere in the order of 17-23 Million per day to be a member of the EU (After rebates funding agriculture, regional investment, investment in EU backed projects and the like). That makes us a net contributor, along with Germany, which, as I understand it, makes us the only 2 of 26 EU contributors that give more than we take.
I know that we get a lot of stuff funded by the EU...but surely if we're giving out more than we get back, we could just redistribute our membership fee to all the avenues that are currently funded and still have money left over for politicians to fund Duck Houses and the like? I appreciate that there will be additional layers of bureaucratic bullamphetamine parrot that bleed away some of this money by setting up think tanks and other stuff to determine where the money will go...but not to the tune of 17-23 million surely??
Exactly. Why give away x amount of money and receive y back (with y being smaller than x) when you can just keep x in the first place?
3. Professional workers from the EU working in Britain.
If we leave...where do all the nurses come from? And doctors, and any other skilled job which we have had to outsource for a very long time? I'm not trying to be flippant here, but we have something to be very proud of in the NHS, and if we suddenly cut off the source of a lot of those professionals that help make it work, where will it be in the future?
They can come from further afield, from places like India, Canada etc. At present, our boarders are literally open to any European who feels like coming in, no questions asked, whilst everyone else has to apply for visas. That's why criminals and beggars from EU countries end up here. If we leave the EU and apply a fair entry system open to the entire world, it means that the best and brightest will still be allowed in whilst undesirables will be halted at the door. It also means that we can ease the pressure when needed. You can't do that whilst in the EU.
4. UK influence within the EU.
I read a statistic that "Since majority voting was introduced in the late 1980s, the UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal seventy times - and lost all seventy votes.". This would suggest that the UK has no real influence within the EU.
Furthermore, because the EU gets just 1 seat in the World Trade Organisation, the UK effectively gets just a small percentage of that representation. Which seems to me fairly counterintuitive for the 5th largest economy in the world...
This says it better than I ever can:
(https://i.redditmedia.com/tTtgO1VGWObMb_EEENtS6r1p7nGBlNYomw-J130GHb0.jpg?w=320&s=1393ceb82563bfb68cd89ef0c6bb57f5)
5. The EU's view on its own rules.
Article 125 of the EU treaty expressly prohibits the bailing out financially of member states. Indeed, if my research is correct, it was one of the key points required by Germany before they agreed to the Euro.
And yet bailouts have occurred. If the EU is so willing on breaking their own rules...well, are any of the rules they have written sacrosanct, or are they able to tear them up whenever the mood allows?
That's one of the key reasons why I hate and fear the EU. They will happily bin their own rules whenever it suits them. You cannot trust them. Of course, you can't trust national governments either but at least we can punish them at the ballot box. You can't do that with the EU.
-
Exactly. We buy more off of them. We are a consumer, and they are the supplier. It's in their interest to work with us.
Looking at a total without understanding the size of the budget behind it is naive. The percentage of your exports to them is a lot higher than theirs to you. It's like saying if I stopped buying from Amazon they'd crumble. No, I'm a small fry compared to their gross revenue. Looks big to me, not to them. Same with the UK and EU. You'd have more luck if fuel prices were still high but they're not. The EU's GDP is about 20% lower than the US. Do you think the US could lose a state? Sure, it'd feel it but it could do it and move on. California has a GDP not much lower than the UK.
If forced to renegotiate trade deals the UK is in a position of weakness. It wants something the others don't have to give it. There will be concessions. You're not going to get the same deal handed back, as above, they don't really need you. If you've paid attention to what other non-EU countries went through, such as Switzerland, they ended up handing over concessions I am very sure you won't like. Such as the whole open borders thing. Other countries will be more than happy to fill the gaps while leaving the UK to wither on the vine.
Exactly. Why give away x amount of money and receive y back (with y being smaller than x) when you can just keep x in the first place?
It's more Y+Z where Z are the advantages to the single market. All of the major economists have predicted significant revenue losses for the UK when it comes to leave. The only thing they don't agree on is how drastic. Even the most optimistic says austerity is here again. This is *all* of them, not just the usual hand wringers.
-
A Labour MP, Jo Cox, has died following a shooting and stabbing. I think her attacker was motivated by the EU referendum. My thoughts are with her family.
@ Grim
How would the EU cope with both the loss of Britain's membership fees (we're one of the few net contributors) and the loss of all that trade revenue?
According to Donald Tusk, Brexit would destroy the western political world. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680) You can't have it both ways. Either we're a small insignificant country who's departure won't matter at all to the EU, or we're a keystone to it's very survival. Which is it?
And since those are the same economists who thought that the Euro was a good idea, that we would be doomed if we didn't join it, and didn't see the 2008 crash coming, I'm going to go ahead and ignore them.
-
How would the EU cope with both the loss of Britain's membership fees (we're one of the few net contributors) and the loss of all that trade revenue?
They're not going to lose the trade revenue, it'll go somewhere else. It's not a zero sum game. Same as the UK isn't suddenly going to go without the EU imports, they may just have to pay more from them or others. The loss of revenue will hurt but not mortally. Put it this way, if Scotland had left, was the UK doomed? Of course not.
Either we're a small insignificant country who's departure won't matter at all to the EU, or we're a keystone to it's very survival. Which is it?
Neither. Also, Tusk is a hyperbolic blowhard scaremonger. Would you like me to start quoting Boris or Farage and demand you explain them? :)
And since those are the same economists who thought that the Euro was a good idea, that we would be doomed if we didn't join it, and didn't see the 2008 crash coming, I'm going to go ahead and ignore them.
They're not the same people and you keep saying that. Some did warn against both. This time it's *all* and not two sides arguing. Ignore it if you want but you can't pretend it's not there.
-
Exactly. We buy more off of them. We are a consumer, and they are the supplier.
That's not how the whole relationship between imports and exports works. Just because we import more from them than we export to them does not make use a consumer. The gap between imports and exports is also quite small.
And it's easier for countries to do deals one on one.
Evidence?
If it were easier, why was the common market formed? Why was this converted into the single market? If what you say is true, neither of these steps would ever have been taken. Economic integration has been carried out in the EU to make trade easier and to give Europe global influence in world trade.
Trying to negotiate a one size fits all deal with 28 different countries with conflicting interests and demands is slow and time consuming.
Yet, negotiating trade deals with the EU has been far more difficult and time consuming for countries outside the EU, so how would Brexit make things easier? The UK would have to create 28 separate trade deals, unless it were to adopt a Norwegian or Swiss model with the EU, both of which would involve keeping freedom of movement, which you seem so strongly opposed to.
The economic evidence supporting the claims you are making simply isn't there.
Exactly. Why give away x amount of money and receive y back (with y being smaller than x) when you can just keep x in the first place?
In addition to what Rummy has said, the money we receive from the EU is spent on specific areas in the UK which the national government does not or cannot allocate the necessary funding to. Farming, higher education, and regional funding. As I keep saying to you, yet you continually ignore, Northern Ireland is one of the most significant beneficiaries of EU funding. Who would make up that shortfall in the event of Brexit? How would you be financially better off in the event of Brexit?
They can come from further afield, from places like India, Canada etc.
Some already do, but it's not enough. We need migrants from the EU and from outside it to fulfil the needs of the UK economy across multiple sectors.
At present, our boarders are literally open to any European who feels like coming in, no questions asked, whilst everyone else has to apply for visas. That's why criminals and beggars from EU countries end up here.
People are checked Tangi. When was the last time you took a flight out of the country? I've stood at border control in British airports. We have passport checks, unlike in the Schengen zone. By being in the EU the UK has access to shared intelligence and information about people with convictions or who are on certain lists. Some people may slip through, but that's the same of some British people going abroad, no system is ever going to catch anyone.
Your comment about beggars sounds like a line from a UKIP leaflet. There's no evidence to support that. Indeed, I have repeatedly quoted in this topic reliable sources to show that migrants from the EU have a positive impact on the UK's economy and do not put pressure on our public services. The evidence refuting your points is, therefore, very strong.
If we leave the EU and apply a fair entry system open to the entire world, it means that the best and brightest will still be allowed in whilst undesirables will be halted at the door. It also means that we can ease the pressure when needed. You can't do that whilst in the EU.
There's nothing stopping the UK from changing its immigration policy to make it easier for, say for example migrants from Commonwealth countries, to have easier access to the UK. Also, the statement 'brightest and the best' is misleading and sounds like an advert for a university admissions programme at Cambridge or Oxford. The UK needs workers with all sorts of different skill sets to come here, and one size fits all labelling (which you earlier said you were opposed to ;)) isn't helpful to achieving that.
This says it better than I ever can:
Except that it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all.
That's one of the key reasons why I hate and fear the EU. They will happily bin their own rules whenever it suits them. You cannot trust them. Of course, you can't trust national governments either but at least we can punish them at the ballot box. You can't do that with the EU.
They didn't bin their own rule. I'll borrow this from one of Rummy's replies above:
Under the Dublin Regulation, a Member State may make use of the "sovereignty clause" to voluntarily assume responsibility for processing asylum applications for which it is not otherwise responsible under the criteria of the Regulation.
You keep saying how much you want nation states to have more of the old style sovereignty, here's an example of this, and so I don't understand why you're complaining about it.
Your comment about not being able to change who takes decisions at the EU is factually incorrect. By changing your national government, you change who acts at the EU in the Council of Ministers. By voting in elections to the European Parliament, you can change the MEPs working there. As a result, it is incorrect to claim that you cannot use the ballot box to make a difference.
Hate and fear achieve nothing in life, except to create more of the same. Europe was full of both of those things during the two world wars, and the EU and its forerunners was something that was devised, in part, as a counter to them. A peace project, bringing countries and nations of the continent together. It stands for the hope, peace, and prosperity. It's not something to be afraid of, but something to be a part of :).
A Labour MP, Jo Cox, has died following a shooting and stabbing. I think her attacker was motivated by the EU referendum. My thoughts are with her family.
It's very distressing news. She was the kind of MP I admire and I can't imagine how much pain her friends and family are feeling. I think that it would be prudent not to go around guessing what motives may or may not be involved at this stage.
According to Donald Tusk, Brexit would destroy the western political world. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680) You can't have it both ways. Either we're a small insignificant country who's departure won't matter at all to the EU, or we're a keystone to it's very survival. Which is it?
First, the headline is could destroy not would. A very important difference ;).
Second, let's add a bit more context: Tusk and Juncker: Brexit could be 'end of West' (https://euobserver.com/political/133808)
What Tusk is saying is that a UK departure could undermine the entire peace project which started in western Europe after World War II. He is not commenting on whether the UK's economic or political influence, he is referring to the possible impact and the message it would send out.
And since those are the same economists who thought that the Euro was a good idea, that we would be doomed if we didn't join it, and didn't see the 2008 crash coming, I'm going to go ahead and ignore them.
Some of those economists didn't think the euro was a good idea. The euro does not equal the EU. There are actually quite a few pro-EU scholars, economists, and experts who do not think that the euro has worked. It's possible to be critical of the euro, yet believe in the EU.
Also, some economists had raised concerns about the practices of banks long before the 2008 financial crash. They don't make policy though.
-
This is a lot to reply to. Just a couple of things before I come back with a bigger answer:
I always thought that the idea of a common/single market was a good idea. Of course it is. I'd be fine with a common market. My issue is, they've gone too far, and a market has now turned into a state.
And I see the beggars on the street every time I go into the city centre, hanging around the cash machines, pleading for money. A friend of mine gave one some food once. He threw it away when he thought we weren't looking. She lost all sympathy for them after that.
By the way, I know what you're all thinking about me at the moment. I have no hatred in my heart for them. I just think that we don't have enough of our own resources to look after all the poor of Europe.
-
And I see the beggars on the street every time I go into the city centre, hanging around the cash machines, pleading for money. A friend of mine gave one some food once. He threw it away when he thought we weren't looking. She lost all sympathy for them after that.
Which has got what to do with the EU?
-
Which has got what to do with the EU?
Since they're EU citizens we can't stop them from entering the country.
-
How are you so *very* certain they're not UK citizens?
-
They're Roma.
-
You might want to try that one again. Because you're not doing at all well at the moment.
-
How do you propose I prove it?
-
You must live in a wonderful paradise where all the people begging you meet are from foreign lands. ;)
Don't worry about it. Better left as it is.
-
We have plenty of home grown beggars as well. They frequently have mental health and addiction problems. Several have died this year on the streets. So when they're given food or blankets they're usually so grateful they cry. They certainly don't bin them.
That's what angers me. If you can throw away food you don't need to be begging. Don't sit there in the street with puppy dog eyes begging for money when the real poor are literally dying on the street.
-
I always thought that the idea of a common/single market was a good idea. Of course it is. I'd be fine with a common market. My issue is, they've gone too far, and a market has now turned into a state.
The elements of a state are not present within the EU by the very fact that it doesn't have a government, it does not, therefore, meet the criteria to be a state.
And I see the beggars on the street every time I go into the city centre, hanging around the cash machines, pleading for money. A friend of mine gave one some food once. He threw it away when he thought we weren't looking. She lost all sympathy for them after that.
By the way, I know what you're all thinking about me at the moment. I have no hatred in my heart for them. I just think that we don't have enough of our own resources to look after all the poor of Europe.
What I'm thinking is that you don't have the evidence to support your claim that they are EU citizens. Have you asked them where they've come from?
Also, the hyperbolic claim about 'looking after all the poor of Europe' is a curious claim to make, considering that it cannot possibly be true by any definition.
They're Roma.
How do you know? Have you asked them?
Also, the Roma originally come from Asia. They did not originate from Europe. They are a nomadic ethnic group. As a result, they can end up being citizens of all sorts of different countries within the EU, including the UK.
That's what angers me. If you can throw away food you don't need to be begging. Don't sit there in the street with puppy dog eyes begging for money when the real poor are literally dying on the street.
If you are angry because of that behaviour, fair enough, however, tarnishing a whole group because of the behaviour you have witnessed from one individual seems disproportionate to me.
-
I had a dream, of sorts.
After the UK voted to leave, Sweden and Denmark got the inspiration to leave too. They all got together with Norway and Iceland to create the North Sea Ecomonic Area. A completely commercial arrangement that totally respected the sovereignty of its individual members.
And this NSEA organisation told the EU were to go, preventing it from bullying its individual members. And it became so successful that eventually Holland, Greenland and even Ireland joined it. And they all lived happily ever.
I want to make this dream a reality.
-
Considering Iceland and Norway are already members of the EEA without being members of the EU, and thus already have access to more markets than they would do without being part of your invented economic area, that fantasy is not going to become reality, because they would be worse off financially by a very long way than they are at the moment.
Also, free trade agreements are hardly this kind of utopia that you think they are. For example, NAFTA is one of the most exploitative free trade agreements that there is.
There is a reason why so many countries have wanted to join the EU over the years, and it's not because they were coerced into it. Member states have chosen to join of their own volition. This ought to tell you something about the desirability of EU membership over free trade agreements. The Norwegians have even strongly advised us not to follow their model and to remain in the EU.
-
The reason why many countries want to join the EU is because it's a cash cow for them. They get the double bonus of receiving money taken from richer members whilst their people get to go work elsewhere, which saves them the need to pay out welfare or create jobs in the first place. It's the same reason why some countries now want out of it whilst others want nothing to do with. Switzerland and Iceland have given it the cold shoulder for example.
-
The reason why many countries want to join the EU is because it's a cash cow for them. They get the double bonus of receiving money taken from richer members whilst their people get to go work elsewhere, which saves them the need to pay out welfare or create jobs in the first place.
Evidence? Where do you get this information? It's so far from the reality of the situation.
Your point does not stand up to scrutiny. Consider that both more wealthy and less well wealthy countries have joined since its inception. If your point were correct, no wealthy countries would have joined at all. Countries join for the mutual trading benefits, especially access to the single market. The single market is crucial to trade without being subjected to a disadvantage.
All EU member states have a welfare system and create jobs. If you want some first hand experience, I have lived and worked in Romania, and I have lived and studied in Spain and Italy, so I can confirm that they have welfare systems and create jobs ;).
It's the same reason why some countries now want out of it whilst others want nothing to do with. Switzerland and Iceland have given it the cold shoulder for example.
Which countries want out? There is no national government in the EU that wants to leave the EU.
Which countries want nothing to do with the EU?
Switzerland is a member of the EFTA and Iceland is a member of the EEA. They both have deals with the EU. On that basis, they certainly haven't given it the cold shoulder.
-
When most of the richer countries joined it was just the Common Market and then the EEC. Now that's it the EU with most of the former communist block involved? Iceland (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/iceland-drops-european-union-membership-bid) and Switzerland (https://www.rt.com/news/346884-switzerland-eu-membership-application-rejected/) don't want membership, and quite rightly so.
Yes, Norway gets the worst of both worlds but that's because they were standing alone. If Britain and a few others on the outside stood in solidarity with them I'm sure they could all stand up to the EU together. If the EU wants to start penalising one member because they won't bow down to them (Switzerland springs to mind) then they'll have to answer to all of them.
And national governments usually only reflect a small portion of their nations opinion. My instincts tell me there's huge numbers of Europeans who want out of the EU.
-
When most of the richer countries joined it was just the Common Market and then the EEC. Now that's it the EU?
Which they all agreed to, including Mrs Thatcher when she signed the Single European Act, and let's not forget that Sweden, Finland, and Austria, three of the wealthiest countries in Europe joined the EU in 1995.
Iceland (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/iceland-drops-european-union-membership-bid) and Switzerland (https://www.rt.com/news/346884-switzerland-eu-membership-application-rejected/) don't want membership, and quite rightly so.
Your claim was that Iceland and Switzerland had given the EU the cold shoulder, and that other countries wanted nothing to do with the EU. Neither of these articles supports your assertion. Just because they have decided not to be members of the EU, the deals that they have involve adopting EU regulations and legislation on a wide range of areas, including Schengen. It makes this clear in both articles.
These countries are, therefore, bound by EU freedom of movement rules and the trading rules, without having any say in making the rules. They are tied closely with the EU, as I outlined in my previous post. There is, therefore, no way that you can conclude, on the basis of the evidence, that they want to 'give the EU the cold shoulder'.
Yes, Norway gets the worst of both worlds but that's because they were standing alone. If Britain and a few others on the outside stood in solidarity with them I'm sure they could all stand up to the EU together.
If this is such a great plan, why is no member state championing it? Here is the Norwegian government's position (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-leave-european-union-norway-prime-minister-erna-solberg-warning-a7084926.html). Also, Norway's deal works well for Norway, but it's not something that would work well for a lot of other member states.
The facts are that no rival trading bloc can compete with the Single Market. This is why the US, China, and India are all seeking deals with the EU as a whole. They want to negotiate more favourable terms with that market.
And national governments usually only reflect a small portion of their nations opinion. My instincts tell me there's huge numbers of Europeans who want out of the EU.
Instincts mean nothing in such crucial debates such as this. Votes of such national importance must be taken on the basis of the facts not idealism. The evidence to support your claim is not there. There are numerous polls carried out for the EU on numerous subjects every year, and while concerns have increased in some member states about certain subjects, that is not the same thing as concluding that people want to leave the EU.
Another point is that national governments do not reflect the tendencies of the voting public nationally. Indeed, the majority of the population did not vote Conservative in 2015, yet we all have to be subject to the Conservative Party's manifesto. That's the way the first past the post system works, yet I do not see you complaining about this ;).
The arguments that you're making are not supported by the facts or weight of evidence. No amount of instinct can get around this point ;).
-
Thatcher later came to regret signing that. Her opposition to Europe is largely why she was done in. And again, the EU was a different beast back then. It didn't have the poorer Eastern countries within it, nor was there the Euro.
It's ok to have a single political area if all the countries are largely similar in GDP. But when poorer countries join it creates the inbalance were the poorer countries need to be subsidised by the richer ones whilst the people of the poorer countries flock to the richer ones for work.
Switzerland want to reduce immigration, which is going to put them in conflict with the EU. I don think their relationship is going to be too cosy in future.
And I despise first past the post. How is it fair for one party to get 1.8 million votes and 58 seats whilst another gets 4 million votes and 1 seat? I voted to end it in that previous referendum, but it didn't pass.
And I trust my instincts because they're usually proven right. And my instinct is, we're going to remain. I really wish it wasn't so. We've now come too far. If after all this we choose to stay, we will come to regret it. As new countries join we'll be increasingly sidelined, and our calls for reform will be ignored.
Because what are we going to do if they don't listen to us? Leave?
-
Thatcher later came to regret signing that. Her opposition to Europe is largely why she was done in. And again, the EU was a different beast back then. It didn't have the poorer Eastern countries within it, nor was there the Euro.
Partly, yes, but let's not forget the role of the Poll Tax in all of this, which reduced her domestic popularity significantly.
Whether she regretted it is by-the-by, she had a chance to reject it, but she chose not to. The reason being was that she knew that the UK couldn't afford not to be part of the Single Market. The Single Market was, furthermore, largely driven by the UK. Free trade is one of the aspects of EU policy that the UK has been fully supportive of.
I'm not clear why you're bringing Eastern European countries into this discussion. It was clear that they would be a part of the EU project in the event of the collapse of communism, so no leader could claim that it would have been a surprise that they would be invited to join the EU in the future.
The single currency or monetary union had been mentioned long before Maastricht, so again the euro was not something that came out of the blue.
The SEA paved the way for monetary and political union, both of which were key components of the Maastricht Treaty.
It's ok to have a single political area if all the countries are largely similar in GDP. But when poorer countries join it creates the inbalance were the poorer countries need to be subsidised by the richer ones whilst the people of the poorer countries flock to the richer ones for work.
Yet this is a distortion of what actually happens. All countries in the EU receive money from the EU. There are net contributors and net recipients, but every country has to pay into the budget. Funding is subsequently distributed to less well off countries in the EU (which are still wealthy compared to much of the world by the way) and to less well off regions in all member states. As I've said to you previously, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and a number of regions of England all receive significant EU funding. It's far from one way traffic.
Furthermore, the whole idea behind EU spending is to bring the less well off countries and regions more into line with the EU average and later the wealthier nations. That's the whole point of integration. The entire continent benefits.
Switzerland want to reduce immigration, which is going to put them in conflict with the EU. I don think their relationship is going to be too cosy in future.
That misses the point though. The point is that the Swiss want to keep the trade deal and their membership of the EFTA.
And I despise first past the post. How is it fair for one party to get 1.8 million votes and 58 seats whilst another gets 4 million votes and 1 seat? I voted to end it in that previous referendum, but it didn't pass.
Well, we can agree on that, because I voted in favour of AV too :). It's a great pity that most people stayed at home.
And I trust my instincts because they're usually proven right. And my instinct is, we're going to remain. I really wish it wasn't so. We've now come too far. If after all this we choose to stay, we will come to regret it. As new countries join we'll be increasingly sidelined, and our calls for reform will be ignored.
Because what are we going to do if they don't listen to us? Leave?
The way in which EU votes are allocated ensures that we will not be sidelined. EU votes in the Council of Ministers are allocated by population size until March of next year, and then a slightly different system is used, albeit along similar lines. It is explained here (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/). In addition, as I have also mentioned to you several times, EU politics is not adversarial, it does not work like Westminster. Member states like to reach agreement by consensus through bargaining. It's not a winner takes all scenario as it is in Westminster.
New counties joining will be a very slow process from now on. The remaining candidate countries are all some way off meeting the criteria, and Turkey will never meet them under its current leader, so you can forget about Turkey joining the EU.
I do not believe that your instincts are right about this, because they fly in the face of all the facts. I think that it's imperative to put facts ahead of anything else when voting on matters of state such as this.
-
You've made better arguments than me that's for sure. But I was never great at arguing outside of the pub environment. :P
I just want the countries of Europe to succeed, and I think the EU is hindering rather than helping. If we stay, will they finally start listening?
-
They have been listening. Remember the votes, 2,466 on the same side compared to 56 against? The UK isn't going to get it's own way 100% of the time. Especially when you consider the MEPs and the Council allow a country to effectively vote against *itself*. That you're personally against something doesn't mean your country has to agree with you and vice versa.
Edit: Because I have to. (Language) Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Brexit (HBO) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8)
-
I just want the countries of Europe to succeed, and I think the EU is hindering rather than helping. If we stay, will they finally start listening?
If you want the countries of Europe to succeed, membership of the EU is the best way of achieving this desire. All of the points that you've put forward about the EU have been shown to be factually inaccurate, so I not sure how much further evidence you require me to post to demonstrate that this anti-EU stance of yours is not based on reality in any shape or form. I'm more than happy to continue posting such evidence though :).
As for listening, all member states listen to each other. You will have seen the voting system that they use in the link I posted last night. The whole system is built on a consensus approach. No member state will ever get everything that it wants all of the time. That's not how European politics works. Neither should it work that way.
-
I've decided to vote remain,
But I swear to god, if Cameron's 'reforms' are blocked, I'm gonna riot. >:(
-
Well, for what it's worth, I think that you're making a very positive choice by doing that and I hope that you feel this tomorrow when you vote :).
-
I hope it's the right choice. I severely hope that I don't come to regret it.
-
If you do, then just put Irisado on your hit list and blame him for everything. Problem solved. One day you will be able to afford the services of Boba Fett to hunt him down and... wait, what do you mean Boba Fett isn't real?
...
Well, amphetamine parrot.
-
If you do, then just put Irisado on your hit list and blame him for everything. Problem solved. One day you will be able to afford the services of Boba Fett to hunt him down and... wait, what do you mean Boba Fett isn't real?
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz81%2Faahabershaw%2F13445325_1025927834163076_6407274944413328062_n_zpse9n89bgf.jpg&hash=80b8102355c7be4c86b21b0927d4f89cb0e15225) (http://s189.photobucket.com/user/aahabershaw/media/13445325_1025927834163076_6407274944413328062_n_zpse9n89bgf.jpg.html)
-
Well this is a first. An internet debate that results in one of the participants changing his mind based on the other party's arguments. :) Congratulations are in order, both to Irisado for his patience and to Captain Calamity for allowing reason to prevail.
On a more serious note, I hope the British have the good sense to remain in the EU. I think both the EU and the UK will be better off with the UK as an EU member state. I'm not convinced the referendum will be a resounding BREmain though. We'll find out soon enough..
-
I've just got back from voting to remain in the EU. It was significantly busier at my local polling station than is usually the case, and the person in charge of counting numbers did confirm to me that turnout was quite good thus far. This may be an indicator than turnout is high across the country which ought to benefit the Remain side.
-
Indeed, the people I usually follow have mentioned they're making a effort to get themselves but also family members and neighbours to the polls. This one is seen as important for all generations.
I'll just leave this one here:
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi103.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm158%2FSouthern_Badger%2Fred_zpszinyyeml.jpg&hash=cd34d055900dcee7891f73f186413ee0b2badca9)
Edit: Well, beslubber. Those that voted it, now own it.
-
I'm...shocked. :o
-
Well. That happened.
For what it's worth, I voted to remain.
Although I admitted to being torn over which way to vote, at no point did the Leave campaign truly quash all of my worries about what a leave vote would do to the UK. I had hoped that this would become a serious debate about the economic and political repercussions of saying/leaving.
Instead, it turned into a several month long muck slinging argument almost solely about immigration.
Personally, I think that migration is a very good thing - please note that I called it migration. It's the movement of people both in and out of the country, bolstering work forces in many different countries and allowing a freedom to decide where you live and work and where you want to be part of a community.
I think that we have woken up to a weaker country and a weaker Europe.
I'd just like to thank the likes of Irisado and GrimSqueaker for having the time and patience to help inform and educate those of us seeking a little more clarity (And Iri, I didn't reply to your reply because I was snowed under at work...I apologise for not showing appreciation until now). Also, thank you to Captain Calamity for making this a vibrant debate...whilst not resorting to the vitriol and hate that I've encountered on other social media. People like Iri, GS and CC make internet communities a worthwhile place to be.
So then. Stiff upper lip. Best foot forward and let's make this amphetamine parrot storm work!
-
I ask for you all to bear with me while reading this post. I've had two hours sleep, and so my ability to write coherently is going to be under strain today.
Looshkin, you're right to call it migration, because that's what it ought to have been called. It was ruthlessly hijacked by the leave campaign, especially Farage, in the most pernicious and xenophobic way imaginable, and it is this fear, instilled in the working class disaffected Labour vote in particular which has tipped the balance against Remain. Thank you for your kind words :).
Farage has shown even more of his true colours this morning with his assertion that 'real and decent people voted to leave'. In other words, he is stating that I, and everyone else who voted to remain in the EU, is not a real of decent person. This is a truly reprehensible and divisive statement, which will serve to widen the divide between the public, not to heal it.
The most astonishing aspect of the discussion this morning is all this talk from members of the public and Conservative politicians about how shocked they are that Cameron has resigned. I'm amazed by their naivety. Cameron was always going to resign immediately if remain lost. He had staked his career on winning.
I take one small crumb of comfort, in that my own region (North East Hertfordshire) bucked the trend for Conservative held areas by voting to remain, but that's not much consolation. I did put a lot of effort into educating people locally about the EU, so perhaps it made a bit of a difference, but I don't know.
For me personally, this is the worst thing that has happened in my life time. I have never felt as bad as I do today about anything. Yes, the sun still rose this morning and the country is still functioning, but the sense of loss is extremely hard for me to bear.
I feel it that it comes down this. This result is a victory for fear, ignorance, and prejudice. It is the most depressing, distressing, and upsetting thing that has ever happened to me, and I think that this country is going to find itself in a very perilous position for a very long time. The EU is weaker as of today and the lights of peace of prosperity that have united us with continental Europe for so long have just been snuffed out.
-
To those of us not in Britain, I'd like to add this to Irisado'so thoughtful response:
If you want to buy ForgeWorld, now is the time.
-
To those of us not in Britain, I'd like to add this to Irisado'so thoughtful response:
If you want to buy ForgeWorld, now is the time.
Would if I could, but for reasons I don't understand, our Economy (South Africa) is tanking with the UK's because of this :(
-
Would if I could, but for reasons I don't understand, our Economy (South Africa) is tanking with the UK's because of this :(
I'm guessing here, but that's probably due to the pivotal trade relationship South Africa has with the UK.
Bummer, man.
-
South Africa's commonwealth status is playing a role there. The Commonwealth wanted the UK to stay in the EU for all sorts of reasons not least trade, so this is not the outcome that the financial markets in countries like South Africa were looking for.
-
So it begins.
Asked by ITV's Good Morning Britain whether he could guarantee that the £350m that was sent to the EU would now go the NHS, Mr Farage said: “No I can’t, I would never have made that claim.
"That was one of the mistakes made by the Leave campaign.”
Not like they accidentally put the idea on the side of a great big red bus or anything.
-
I'm still wrapping my head around this. I honestly don't know how to feel about it.
If it's any consolation though Irisado, you did manage to persuade me to vote remain. :)
As much as I hated the EU I suddenly realised the Pandora's box I'd be opening if we left, and I backed down.
And thank you too for your kind words Looshkin. I try to be polite. I was worried I was damaging my reputation around here the way I was going on. :P
-
So it begins.
Asked by ITV's Good Morning Britain whether he could guarantee that the £350m that was sent to the EU would now go the NHS, Mr Farage said: “No I can’t, I would never have made that claim.
"That was one of the mistakes made by the Leave campaign.”
Not like they accidentally put the idea on the side of a great big red bus or anything.
Yes, Farage is now trying to claim that because he was not a member of the official Vote Leave campaign, he doesn't have to subscribe to their promises and that their promises were wrong. He is a nasty and manipulative liar.
If it's any consolation though Irisado, you did manage to persuade me to vote remain. :)
That's good to know :). Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain as a whole, which was something at least.
-
You made better arguments than I did that's for sure. And it seems that the rest of N.I agreed too. ;)
It's a shame about our low turn out though. I hate to see that. Especially here in this situation when you're vote is equal to anyone else's and therefore really does matter.
I hope the UK doesn't fall apart. Despite coming from a catholic nationalist family I like the UK. I feel more kinship with Scousers and Brummies than I do with Dubliners. :P
-
I heard a rumor that, because of low turnout, something can be brought up in Parliament to have the vote *again?*
Did I hear that right?
-
Yes, because turnout was below 75% and the vote for leave was less than 60%, it is possible, but it would be difficult. There is a petition doing the rounds to try to force the government to implement this, which I'm trying to sign, but it keeps crashing due to high traffic.
You can read more about this here: Brexit: Petition for second EU referendum so popular the government site's (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-petition-for-second-eu-referendum-so-popular-the-government-sites-crashing-a7099996.html)
-
Best of three? :P
Seriously though, maybe a second go wouldn't be the worst idea. Perhaps now people will drag their asses to the booth to vote, and the EU might change tac too.
-
It also seems (from the press) that a lot of people didn't fully realize what would happen and what they were voting for.
Some Brits don't even know what the EU *is*! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?postshare=8141466778634681&tid=ss_tw)
-
The BBC has just been conducting an interview with people in Hartlepool. For those of you who do not know, Hartepool is a very run down old town in the old manufacturing area of North East England. A working class Labour stronghold. 70% voted for Brexit, going against the Labour position, and here are some of the comments from the people who were interviewed:
'I voted leave because of all them immigrants in the schools and in the NHS'
'I voted leave to get the immigrants out'
'I voted leave and I don't know why' (I'm not kidding here).
'I voted leave because I don't like Cameron'
'I voted leave [insert numerous expletives'.
That's the kind of level of education and intelligence on offer in some of these places.
It's also worth pointing out that the North East England receives EU funding, which it will now lose. This vote isn't going to improve their lives at all.
-
Cornwall voted to Leave but wants to keep getting money. Yeah, that's not how it works.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36616955 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36616955)
-
I truly despair. This is what I have been saying all along. So many regions of the UK receive money from the EU and now they have voted to leave they still want to receive the money, which neither central nor local government can give them. This is the politics of insanity. Asking for money which was guaranteed by voting to remain. I'm running out of words to describe how short sighted and ill informed this Brexit vote is.
-
I tried and failed to read the whole thread, but i (and many of my colleagues, some of them with family in England/Ireland) have been following the Brexit debate and vote closely and haven't yet figured out how to feel about it.
I am German and personally i am pro European, but i also think that the EU should have remained a mostly economical union for a longer timeperiod. It grew too fast in size and depht, frightening a lot of people and becoming less than it could be. For example i was always in favour of a more flexible EU membership system, where you could opt in (and out)for certain perks (lets say easy access to the EU market for example) but have to return something for it (free movement and working of EU members in your state for example).
I am almost in favour to scratch the EU completely, mark it as learning experience and start it over again. The reason why i say "almost" is, that i know, that if the EU should fail completely, an experiment of such a magnitude wont be tried again for a long time and the dream of a united European Nation will be over decades if not centuries.
In one part of the thread Irisado, you mentioned that many people voted for the brexit for idiotic reasons, which is true enough. On the other hand, politicians of all member states (and the UK takes in my eyes a close to the top spot in that regard) blamed the EU for everything going wrong in the country, so you can hardly blame the people if they start to believe it at some point. Cameron himself has been a prime example for this, as far as i have read.
Also you stated that direct democracy dosent work, because normal people can not comprehend the scope of some decisions. I dont fully buy that. Direct democracy can work well, as Switzerland shows. You need to build up a culture for it to work, though. First step, you need an educated population, who are not treated by politicians of all parties like a sheep herd, but who are given the feeling, that their opinion counts and is respected. Then and only then the majority of voters in an referendum will take the time to sit on their arses for a couple of hours and think their vote through, and dont follow the loudest trouble maker or the shiniest yellowpaper frontpage.
After all, you dont need to know every nuance of a possible lawchange, contract, ect. (honestly, most of my countries politicans hadn't even read the terms of the first Greek saving package and voted for it anyway (no joke, it was probably the main reason for the stepping down of our then Bundespräsident Horst Köhler, because he received a lot of political pressure to ratify the package regardless, though thats my most educated guess for his decision)) to get a good feel of the possible impact.
Germany is a very good example for this. We have been ruled now for over a decade by a large coalition of one color or another (though the main party stayed the same), but basically with the same agenda. The parties in opposition have become so meaningless, that they have no way to fullfill their important role as check to the governments work. "Alternativlos" (without alternative) has become one of our chancellors most famous quoted words, especially concerning very important topics like the Greek crisis, the recent migration wave, spy scandals etc., though there are always alternatives. As a voter the feeling started to grow, that it dosent matter to which of the established parties you cast your vote for, because at the end nothing changed and election promises where often broken the month after the polls where cast (sometimes even on the very day).
This lead to a lot of frustration and now to the rise of the AFD, a conservative, in some parts fully rightwing party, who used that frustration to grow in size so fast, not seen since the time of "Die Grünen" (the green party)in the late 70s. And i can fully sympathize with their voters (well to those who aren't from the "brown" fraction anyway). The knee jerk reaction of the established parties was basically to call them all nazis, which (considering the above mentioned frustration) resulted in even more people voting for the AFD, just to show the established parties the middle finger.
And all this is, in my opinion, mostly because the people feel left out in the decisionmaking process, that has partially huge impacts in their every day life. Another sign of this is the ever decreasing number of people who carry a partybook (are members of a party organisation). The younger generation (to which i am still holding on with a fingertip, considering my 33 years of age :P ) is actually quite politically intrested, but they feel simply left out in the current system of status quo and search for different ways of participation. You start to feel like you life in a prison, where you are allowed to vote every couple of years for new wardens, when you should actually be running the show. But the walls never change save maybe for the paintjob.
Now before i forget to where i want to go with this: direct democracy. This is a great way to relieve the above described pent up frustration. People are less likely to swallow every lie they get served, if they have a feeling, that they are not ignored and that they are the sovereign, not sheep, driven every couple of years to the pen, to cast a perceived meaningless vote.
For the EU, id advocate to include into the EU contracts, that after 10 or so years of membership, the country in question has to cast a vote, if they want to stay or not and the decision has to be accepted from all sides, without the aggressive talk i have been hearing lately, even from EU officials themselves. That way the people dont feel forced into a project, that might very well change their way of living, at least not without the knowledge, that they can get out of it again, if things go south. The EU has time (and a right now not existing incentive) to prove that it can improve the lives of its members in one way or another. Also the country's politicians will be less prone to blame the EU for everything going wrong, because of the very real chance, that it might backfire (e.g. Brexit). Then when the time comes to vote, in my eyes, you can then trust the majority of people to make an educated decision.
Ok, that text became longer, than i had anticipated :)
-
It's not possible to maintain a union of any kind on the basis of member states coming and going every few years. It's totally impractical and would create too much instability and uncertainty. Also, an organisation as complex as the EU cannot and must not be subject to referenda, because the evidence all point to the fact that the public at large lacks the necessary education and understanding to be able to make informed choices. I agree that an educated population would help to some extent with this, but there would still be, certainly in the UK, too many people who would not have access to the necessary level of education.
The other problem is one which you have raised yourself, the fact that politicians like to scapegoat the EU for unpopular policy making decisions. This means that people start to buy into this discourse and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Direct democracy, such as a referendum, in that context is extremely unwise. The result today is stark evidence of that. So many people in this country have voted to leave on the basis of the blame game played by politicians which has combined with their own fears, ignorance, and prejudices, to produce a toxic cocktail of grievances, many of which are much more to do with domestic politics than the EU.
On the point you raise about the main parties being too similar, the voting public has to take responsibility for that. For a number of decades now, elections in Europe have been won from the centre ground. As a result, centre right and centre left parties have converged towards the centre ground, especially in terms of economic policy, because that is the only way they have been able to win elections. Are we really to blame the political parties for responding to how the majority of the electorate votes? I think that people need to take responsibility for this and not pass the buck to the politicians who are responsible for many of the other issues you mention, such as those I've outlined above, but cannot be criticised for responding to the needs of the electorate.
There is, however, a challenge for centre left parties which, since the financial crisis in particular, have struggled to reconcile their educated middle and upper class voters with their less well educated working class voters, who feel left behind. This has resulted in them losing votes to the far left in some EU countries or the far right in others. It's a very difficult problem to resolve.
What is for sure though is that problems such as this would be best handled together, through a programme of more Europe, not isolationism. Globalisation is here to stay and trying to withdraw from it and take regressive steps, as Brexit is going to do, will not work. The EU will now have to put resolving many issues on the back burner while sorting out this mess that the UK has created, which will serve only to exacerbate existing problems.
The EU does not need replacing or restarting. What it needs is a concerted effort to come up with some different approaches to the economic issues which are driving the concerns and dissatisfaction being expressed by a number of voters in several states.
-
Let's think this through; is there any way back from this vote? I think the numbers were just too tight. 52 to 48 is not enough.
Also, I know how much you believe in the EU Irisado, so this must be really tough for you. :(
-
It's not possible to maintain a union of any kind on the basis of member states coming and going every few years. It's totally impractical and would create too much instability and uncertainty. Also, an organisation as complex as the EU cannot and must not be subject to referenda, because the evidence all point to the fact that the public at large lacks the necessary education and understanding to be able to make informed choices. I agree that an educated population would help to some extent with this, but there would still be, certainly in the UK, too many people who would not have access to the necessary level of education.
You are nicely demonstrating the entire point of my post. You basically say people in general are too stupid to vote what is best for them, so others have to make the decisions for them. Thats not too far away from the feudal age. This leads to the frustration and lack of trust in the government i have described before, especially in times of crisis, when trust is needed. This leads to people basically doing their best, to screw the establishment over, without taking the time to think.
If the EU had been build on the shoulders of the people (by referendum) instead of being the idea of the national governments, if the people where more included in its decisionmaking process, either by referendas or the ability to vote its leaders, it might not be the tight organisation that it is now, but it would be much more stable. And you wouldn't have to fear those referandas either, because when the people say "Yes" once to the EU, they will do so again, if it dosent really screw up at some point.
Basically you dont want to ask the people because you fear their answer. But by not asking, chances are higher, that the answer you will receive, when you eventually ask, will be the one you dont want to hear. Thats another self fulfilling prophecy.
The other problem is one which you have raised yourself, the fact that politicians like to scapegoat the EU for unpopular policy making decisions. This means that people start to buy into this discourse and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Direct democracy, such as a referendum, in that context is extremely unwise. The result today is stark evidence of that. So many people in this country have voted to leave on the basis of the blame game played by politicians which has combined with their own fears, ignorance, and prejudices, to produce a toxic cocktail of grievances, many of which are much more to do with domestic politics than the EU.
And still you claim that politicians make the better decisions for the whole country. Its a self fullfilling prophecy true enough, but it dosent start with stupid people, it starts with lack of trust into those people, especially since we life now in a time, where i claim that most people desire peace and prosperity.
On the point you raise about the main parties being too similar, the voting public has to take responsibility for that. For a number of decades now, elections in Europe have been won from the centre ground. As a result, centre right and centre left parties have converged towards the centre ground, especially in terms of economic policy, because that is the only way they have been able to win elections. Are we really to blame the political parties for responding to how the majority of the electorate votes? I think that people need to take responsibility for this and not pass the buck to the politicians who are responsible for many of the other issues you mention, such as those I've outlined above, but cannot be criticised for responding to the needs of the electorate.
There is, however, a challenge for centre left parties which, since the financial crisis in particular, have struggled to reconcile their educated middle and upper class voters with their less well educated working class voters, who feel left behind. This has resulted in them losing votes to the far left in some EU countries or the far right in others. It's a very difficult problem to resolve.
I can only speak for Germany on this, or rather my take on it what happened here. We had a social democratic party leading the government from 1998-2005. This party decided to completely break with their voters by introducing a good number of very capitalistic laws, reducing job security, introducing the Hartz reforms, that basically made unemployed people poorer. Also certain financial laws where introduced (for example only a 25% tax on incomes from intrest rates and stock trading) that benefited most people with high income. Non of their core voters voted them for those measures (and nowadays they are below 20%) and it was maybe the beginning of a deep mistrust towards political parties in general.
Then came Chancellor Merkel and the first large coalition. From the perspective of her party she did a great job. She always managed to take the glory when things went well and managed to shift the blame towards the coalition (who always emerged weaker from those coalitions than before) partner when it didnt. She also assimilated basically the defining characteristics of the social democrats, the greens and to a lesser extent those of the economic party.
That resulted in mostly 4 things. Firstly, she could make a coalition with any other large party, taking them in as the junior partner, secondly, the established parties mostly lost their profiles and thirdly, the former conservative CDU (Merkels party) shifted quite bit to the left, creating a political vacuum at the light to medium right center, so to speak. Fourthly (if that is even a word) opposition died. The only remaining true opposition was "Die Linke", which most people simply refuse to vote for, since it has its roots in the SED, the former GDR (DDR) national party.All in all they where to weak to offer any true need for the government to actually try to debate and haggle with them.
That wasnt actually much of a problem (save for the before mentioned problem that people had the feeling, that their votes went to waste, as no matter for whom they voted, they would get the CDU with Chancellor Merkel in the lead, as can also be seen by the sinking number of voters), until several crisis arrived that needed important decisions to be made. It might have started with the NSA scandal (which was basically ignored save for some nice words), Fukushima, Greek crisis, migrants and now a pretty much bonkers Erdogan (please dont sue me Erdo).
With the opposition basically not existing, Merkel was free to decide the course of action, without debate, without feeling the need to even truly explaining herself. This caused the chain reaction that created the AFD, and might now very well have been one important cause for the Brexit, when she singlehandedly invited everyone (i dont have a problem with war refugees, btw., quite the opposite and id even go so far as to directly handle the asyl process on the Syrian border and ship them over to the EU to avoid the deaths on the sea, but I do have a problem with migrants with little education, who most likely will never have a chance on the job market) into the EU, without even getting all members to agree to that cause of action first.
What i am trying to say here is, you are right, people voted for those parties, but the problem is, once the vote is over and especially if there is no opposition left in parliament, said party can make, sometimes irreversible, decisions, no matter if they reflect peoples will or not. And as you admit yourself, politicians also dont always make the best decisions for the people that voted them. Thats the reason why i am for referendas, within a certain framework.
For an (extreme) example, just look at Turkey right now, you can see there very nicely, how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. Just give it another 5 or so years.
The opposition is cowered or on its best way to jail, critical medias basically no longer exist, etc. I doubt that people actually wanted all this, when they voted for Erdogan, but now they have now no longer a way to stop it save civil war, though i am hopefully too much of a pessimist here.
What is for sure though is that problems such as this would be best handled together, through a programme of more Europe, not isolationism. Globalisation is here to stay and trying to withdraw from it and take regressive steps, as Brexit is going to do, will not work. The EU will now have to put resolving many issues on the back burner while sorting out this mess that the UK has created, which will serve only to exacerbate existing problems.
I agree with you here. But i fear that the whole design of the EU is flawed, if it takes years to release one member state. Heck with Greece it was even considered to be impossible without destroying the EU (again "Alternativlos" according to our Chancellor).
Also the EU seems to be paralyzed anyway, according to some news i have read, stating that since in 2017 there are votes in France and Germany, important decisions get to be postponed past that date. If thats true, then its design flaw in my eyes.
The EU does not need replacing or restarting. What it needs is a concerted effort to come up with some different approaches to the economic issues which are driving the concerns and dissatisfaction being expressed by a number of voters in several states.
I fear that is wishfull thinking, especially when people in 2 or 3 years realize, that the world didnt end for Britain, when they left the EU (which i dont think it will, despite the usual panic making). If one more (large) country should leave now, i believe the EU is done for. But if the EU dosent change, dosent become more democratic, closer to the people, if it stays that somehow undefined, frightening monster, that can easily be blamed for everything bad happening, because it, due to its distance to the people, never managed to build up trust among them, i believe the EU will sooner or later fall apart.
-
However, referendums are glacially slow and only work on the most simple of 0/1 questions. They're not a one size fits all solution. Stay/leave. Change - Yes/No. They're not designed to work for anything more difficult than that. Trying to adjust them for policy making would be a disaster. Certainly, you could save them for the final adoption process for a law yet then we're back to the problem of them being a marathon to complete. You're also going to find referendum fatigue as people just get plain sick of them turning up all the damn time for things they don't find at all interesting.
That's ignoring the costs involved.
-
I like that the only reason people would vote to leave is because they're stupid. I love the... Bourgeoisie of it. The assumption that only those of high society know what's best for the plebes.
Except, the whole problem of looking at the people below you as plebes. And treating them like plebes. And calling them idiots. And then wondering why the proletariat keep revolting. Of course, the peasants have always been revolting, but now they're rebelling.
The unwashed masses eventually get sick of being stepped on and being told it's for their own good. The stay side did not convince people that staying was in their best interest. So people voted to leave. They are pursuing what they believe is best for themselves. Right or wrong plays no part in it. Truth doesn't matter, only belief. Belief toppled a Prime Minister, while truth got buried in the dust somewhere.
Nine Inch Nails - Head Like A Hole - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao-Sahfy7Hg)
-
First - theme music. Bonnie Tyler - I Need a Hero (Lyrics) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY)
Irisado has been referring to ignorance, not knowing. Stupidity is something else entirely. Lonewolf mentioned stupidity in his own summaries which is all well and good as it enforced his counter points.
An educated voting public is a good thing. As seen this morning where interviewed Leave voters were shocked and dismayed at what they'd done, thinking it didn't matter. Knowing why you want to vote a certain way is far better than voting through emotion or out of pure reaction.
Still, you roll with this class versus class motif as it can be very British and as Hamilton has shown us, with the right script you may win some awards. :-*
-
I believe he did, specifically, indicate that a lack of intelligence was behind people's votes...
The BBC has just been conducting an interview with people in Hartlepool. For those of you who do not know, Hartepool is a very run down old town in the old manufacturing area of North East England. A working class Labour stronghold. 70% voted for Brexit, going against the Labour position, and here are some of the comments from the people who were interviewed:
'I voted leave because of all them immigrants in the schools and in the NHS'
'I voted leave to get the immigrants out'
'I voted leave and I don't know why' (I'm not kidding here).
'I voted leave because I don't like Cameron'
'I voted leave [insert numerous expletives'.
That's the kind of level of education and intelligence on offer in some of these places.
It's also worth pointing out that the North East England receives EU funding, which it will now lose. This vote isn't going to improve their lives at all.
And since I'm one of those educated folks that can read and recall information, I'll be allowed to vote! And since I can vote, due to passing the level of literate and capable of recalling something from the page before test I believe was required... I'll stick with my whole elitists getting thumbed because they treat the people with "low education and intelligence" the way they do.
I'm not saying it was a good idea. I happen to think they should have stayed. I happen to think the Brexit was a bad idea. I also happen to see a pretty obvious prejudice going on here. How many hands tall is that horse, by the way? :-*
-
Education tests (voter literacy) prior to voting were an American thing. Kind of a bad thing, am'i'right? Can we get an amen? No, I'll go on then. Since we're talking about a very specific example here, I'll leave you to misinterpret it, due to your clearly passing the level of literate. But don't worry, we don't consider you to be 3/5 of a poster. Those days are long gone. An amen now? No, okay. Tough crowd. :)
Edit: Theme music as it's funny.
brianna (??????) on Twitter: "who made this i cant even believe- (https://twitter.com/cutebuttmikey/status/746424357451268096)
-
I'll give you an amen. AMEN! How could I have misinterpreted someone saying that ignorant, stupid people vote for column A actually meant that only ignorant, stupid people voted that way. I'm sure there was a subtle implication that educated, intelligent people could rationally vote for leaving. Certainly no stupid, ignorant people voted to stay. Only well educated, intelligent folks voted to stay. There's no daemonization of the opposing faction, no sir! You must be much more clever than I. I just looked at the words that were there and took them at face value. Tea and medals for everyone... that voted to stay.
The "stay" camp tried to win with well reasoned, educated, clever arguments. They lost to what appears to be fear and anger.
They say that when the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. The same can be said if all you have are precision tools. You start to see every problem as something you can finesse, something you can outwit, something you can think your way out of. Something you can manipulate to your advantage.
I recently ran into a problem at work. One thing that I do at work is install scales on garbage trucks. I know, glamorous. Hold the applause. The toolbox has many different gadgets, handy doo-dads, electrical diagnostic gear. Cool, techy stuff. The scales are held together with 1' Bolts, tightened to 550 foot-pounds. [The amount of force that 550 lbs would exert on a 1 foot long bar, for those that aren't in the know.] We generally put those on with a 3 foot long torque-wrench, so you need to exert just shy of 200 lbs of force on the handle to achieve your torque spec.
The bolt I had to remove was stuck. I mean, stuck. I'm a big guy. 280 lbs. I couldn't budge it. All the clever, brilliant ideas weren't going to budge it. We tried penetrating oil, torching it [Heating metals and then rapidly cooling them can be used to loosen seized bolts, again, if you aren't familiar.], and using a heavy impact gun. It didn't move. What worked? Getting an 8 foot long extension and lifting with all the force I could muster, to turn it 1/6 of a turn at a time. My best guess is that I was applying over 2000 foot-pounds of torque, and that got it to budge.
The point? Clever wasn't the right course of action. Getting a big, stupid bar and grunting it out got the job done. Fancy was not the right way to deal with the problem.
The stay camp used tools that the "common folk" weren't going to be influenced by. See the rise of Trump for a reasonably analogous situation. The people that needed to be convinced to stay weren't going to be budged by clever word play. Couldn't care less for "high concepts" that only the presumably intelligent and well educated were going to consider. They had fears and anger that weren't addressed in a way they could access.
Sometimes, straight forward, direct, simple methods are needed. This was one of those cases. Trying to manipulate people only works if the tools you use will influence them. The uneducated people start to see manipulation when things go over their heads, and they then have more fear. I sure wish I was more clever, so I could understand it.
Could you perhaps explain how I misinterpreted? I'm sure it will just be a waste of effort on one such as myself, but I beseech thee nonetheless.
-
Oh, we'll all agree (except for that guy, there's always that guy) that both campaigns were *terrible* at explaining their position. A lot of shouting, slogans, and general discomfort but with more shouting.
Referring to the example in question, let me be the first to actually use the word stupid in direct reference, that was some pure puffin road cone shagging stupidity quoted there. "Adam" was an example quoted often. I edited out the video above as it was linked from the HuffPost and damned if I'm sending them links. He didn't think his vote counted as the result was certain. So he voted Leave. Guess what? That was beslubbering stupid reasoning. Feels good to actually say doesn't it?
As an aside, what's with these countries that refuse to use the easier metric system? Any hoo...
Gove, bless his heart, made a wonderful statement about experts.
I think that the people of this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Guess who was wrong and who was right? It's alright, we already know. The consequences were named, they were listed. Yet what message got across - a big red bus saying lots of money to the NHS. That promise lasted less than 12 hours after the vote. Just like the "experts" already said.
As shown today, web searches *soared* today from the UK wondering what the EU does. People didn't know. The same people who, those that bothered to, voted (terrible sentence, my editor would be aghast). This wasn't about finesse, it wasn't about being superior, it was about ignorance and manipulating it for one's own ends.
Irisado started this thread to raise the issues and discuss them so that at least here, people were able to see what was involved. Honestly, I wish he'd been hired by the Remain campaign as he did a far better job than they did. No shouting, no hyperbole. Just the facts and the reasoning behind them. Sure, we got emotional at times as, wait for it, THE DECISION beslubberING MATTERED. Unfortunately, the majority of the UK don't read 40KOnline. We're working on that, by the way. Chemtrails, fluoride, electromagnetic radiation and all that jazz.
I honestly am not going to guess how much you personally know about the details of the campaign. I followed it and researched it after Irisado posted as, amphetamine parrot, I didn't know and I wanted to know. Intellectual curiosity. Something I wish *was* contagious. I'm not a UK resident so I didn't get to vote yet I still wanted to know what was going on, why, and what were the stakes. I wish many of the actual UK residents had done the same. As, well, we already know what happened there.
So, there we go.
Please tell me what high concepts and clever word play abandoned the common folk?
Theme music as it's all about the children of the future and, damn it, a magnificent song. Queen - I Want It All (Official Video) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDcoX7s6rE)
-
However, referendums are glacially slow and only work on the most simple of 0/1 questions. They're not a one size fits all solution. Stay/leave. Change - Yes/No. They're not designed to work for anything more difficult than that. Trying to adjust them for policy making would be a disaster. Certainly, you could save them for the final adoption process for a law yet then we're back to the problem of them being a marathon to complete. You're also going to find referendum fatigue as people just get plain sick of them turning up all the damn time for things they don't find at all interesting.
That's ignoring the costs involved.
You dont need a referendum over every topic and every other day, just for those of great public intrest (again using Switzerland as an example). Thats why I said, that there needs to be a framework for them. One of those rules could be, that you need a certain minimum participation, for the referendum to count. And you are right of course, only yes/no questions, or maybe questions with at most 3-4 options can work really. But even so you can cover a large area of topics.
Also towards the costs, i am sure that you could set up an online voting system, maybe also working with something similar like the PIN and TAN system. Though the setup costs would be high, since that system would need to be secure from manipulation, you would only have to set it up once. I also think it would get more people to vote. Just an idea honestly.
-
Does there need to be a certain minimum participation for governmental votes? The UK is currently exploring that requirement though, if the online site remains up long enough for people to register.
Certainly not 3-4 options, that'll usually end with middling results within the boundaries of error.
You say matters of great public interest yet that's a matter of personal opinion as well. Things I find of great interest, due to my environmental career, I'm sure others certainly do not. It all sounds good but how do we make it actually work?
-
Well by applying a minimum participation rate, you basically make sure that only matters of public interest make it through to the point, where a binding decision is made.
You could also introduce a rule, that you need to collect a certain amount of signatures before a referendum is even started. Would also cut down on the costs for the public, since the person or organization trying to go for a referendum needs to organize a campaign to gather those signatures with their own money.
Concerning the UK, all i can say is, that even if they truly decide to leave the EU, i doubt that it will hurt them too much long term. While the EU right now is all about blustering and "making an example" (which is an idiotic reaction in my eyes, as it just drives the UK farther away and will make coming joint projects all the more difficult and really just makes the EU look like a dick, after all the UK has been, and right now still is a net payer), there are a couple of tricks to circumvent the toll barriers and there will still be enough EU members willing to make bilateral contracts with the UK.
What might hurt is, if the scots and ireland decides to leave the UK, though i am no way deep enough into UK politics to know what the chances for this are (the scots recently decided after all to stay, though one of the reasons for the decision was the fear, that they would leave the EU, if they became independent, which is a mood point now of course) and what kind of impact this would cause.
-
You are nicely demonstrating the entire point of my post. You basically say people in general are too stupid to vote what is best for them, so others have to make the decisions for them. Thats not too far away from the feudal age. This leads to the frustration and lack of trust in the government i have described before, especially in times of crisis, when trust is needed. This leads to people basically doing their best, to screw the establishment over, without taking the time to think.
I've been talking about fear, ignorance, prejudice, and a lack of education. None of this equates to stupidity.I believe that education solves many problems. I have taught EU politics in higher education over a number of years, and every single time I've seen nearly all my students have a more positive opinion of the EU at the end of the course before it than at the start because, and they told me this, they felt much better informed about how it actually worked.
The same is true for the public at large. Inform them better and they make informed decisions. There are still people today complaining that they didn't have the information that they needed to make an informed choice. This was also a source of great frustration, far more so than a lot of what you're describing.
Your point is also contradictory, because people are voting for other people to make decisions for them every time there is an election, and even in this referendum they were effectively voting for this too, because voting for Brexit was inevitably going to lead to a change of Prime Minister.
If the EU had been build on the shoulders of the people (by referendum) instead of being the idea of the national governments, if the people where more included in its decisionmaking process, either by referendas or the ability to vote its leaders, it might not be the tight organisation that it is now, but it would be much more stable. And you wouldn't have to fear those referandas either, because when the people say "Yes" once to the EU, they will do so again, if it dosent really screw up at some point.
The people were very much in favour of the stance adopted by their national governments when the ECSC was formed, and when the Treaty of Rome was signed to create the EEC. Also, remember that the UK had a referendum in 1975 which the remain vote won by 2:1. The people were involved in that.
The EU was, furthermore, constructed for the people as much as it was the political elites. Its entire ethos has been to bring peace and prosperity to the people of Europe. Of course elites have benefited from this, but so have the people. That was reflected by the fact that still nearly half of the UK votes in favour of remaining.
There are disenfranchised people in member states, and specifically relating to the UK it was the old Labour working class vote which defied its party leadership and voted to leave. This was not because of the EU though. Most of them don't even know what the EU is, what it does, or how it works. They just didn't like David Cameron and were angry with their own Labour leadership for losing touch with them, and voted to punish both of them. That's not how people are supposed to vote in a referendum. They are supposed to vote about the issue the referendum is being held on, but this did not happen. It would happen with other referenda either, and that is one of the great dangers of having them. Referenda are, therefore, neither representative nor progressive.
Basically you dont want to ask the people because you fear their answer. But by not asking, chances are higher, that the answer you will receive, when you eventually ask, will be the one you dont want to hear. Thats another self fulfilling prophecy.
The way in which modern democracy works is that the people choose their representatives. Referenda do not have to be called. They are not a requirement of a democratic state, and as you've seen a combination of a lack of education and grievances (the two points I've made above) means that many lose sight of what they are supposed to be voting for and the whole concept is quickly drowned in a sea of protest voting. That is from where the danger comes. It's not about fear, it's about pragmatic reality.
And still you claim that politicians make the better decisions for the whole country. Its a self fullfilling prophecy true enough, but it dosent start with stupid people, it starts with lack of trust into those people, especially since we life now in a time, where i claim that most people desire peace and prosperity.
Because they do. They possess the information, they have access to the institutions to make things happen, and they have the power to make change. You might not like the decisions they take, but if they're won a mandate during an election, it's necessary to accept that this is part of the democratic process. Like it or not that's what the majority of politicians do. There are always bad apples, poor leaders, corrupt members of the elite, but to imply that they are somewhat incapable and the people should decide is to make the same argument you're claiming that I shouldn't be making, but just reversed.
The difference with a referendum is that the politicians have not made the decision. The people have. The crucial problem with that is that the decision has been taken on the basis of fear, ignorance, and prejudice in the case of this EU referendum, not the facts. Just like the AV referendum in this country in 2011 was used as a vehicle to punish Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for going into coalition with the Conservatives. There is, therefore, a lack of democratic legitimacy in the result because the people have decided directly for reasons which were nothing to do with the actual question on the ballot paper.
I don't understand why you keep talking about self-fulfilling prophecies and stupid people. None of that has anything to do with what is being discussed here.
I can only speak for Germany on this, or rather my take on it what happened here. We had a social democratic party leading the government from 1998-2005. This party decided to completely break with their voters by introducing a good number of very capitalistic laws, reducing job security, introducing the Hartz reforms, that basically made unemployed people poorer. Also certain financial laws where introduced (for example only a 25% tax on incomes from intrest rates and stock trading) that benefited most people with high income. Non of their core voters voted them for those measures (and nowadays they are below 20%) and it was maybe the beginning of a deep mistrust towards political parties in general.
More or less the same as new Labour under Tony Blair. The reason was that the middle class, especially the upper middle class, which is where the majority of voters lie in western European countries support capitalist economics. As a result, they form the centre ground where parties must be if they want to be elected. This explains the decisions take by centre left parties which got into government during the 1990s and early 2000s.
What i am trying to say here is, you are right, people voted for those parties, but the problem is, once the vote is over and especially if there is no opposition left in parliament, said party can make, sometimes irreversible, decisions, no matter if they reflect peoples will or not. And as you admit yourself, politicians also dont always make the best decisions for the people that voted them. Thats the reason why i am for referendas, within a certain framework.
Right, and I agree with everything you say here, except that it does not justify the case for referenda for the reasons I've explained above. If people are so concerned about homogenised politics, they need to be more careful with their voting during elections. There is certainly, for example, a lot of tactical voting which goes on in the UK which some people later come to regret (it was this sort of voting which, in part, led to the Conservative majority in 2015 here which had not been predicted). Also, it's incumbent on national governments to ensure that certain sections of society are not left behind by the economic policies which they choose. This has been a problem going back decades. You don't solve it by having referenda.
For an (extreme) example, just look at Turkey right now, you can see there very nicely, how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. Just give it another 5 or so years.
The opposition is cowered or on its best way to jail, critical medias basically no longer exist, etc. I doubt that people actually wanted all this, when they voted for Erdogan, but now they have now no longer a way to stop it save civil war, though i am hopefully too much of a pessimist here.
Actually, Erdogan has strong support from some elements of society. It's roughly a 50:50 split. This is why he has been able to stay in office. Comparing Turkey with EU member states, especially those from western Europe, is also a bit like comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the quality of democracy and how deeply embedded it is within the institutions.
I agree with you here. But i fear that the whole design of the EU is flawed, if it takes years to release one member state. Heck with Greece it was even considered to be impossible without destroying the EU (again "Alternativlos" according to our Chancellor).
There was never any question of Greece leaving the EU. It doesn't even want to. The question was whether Greece should leave the euro. The reason why that idea did not get implemented was because it was concluded that it would cause Greece's economic situation to deteriorate even faster than if it were to stay in the euro.
Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty has never been implemented, so none of us knows how well it will work in practice yet, so it's too soon to draw any conclusions about whether it's flawed. The whole design of the EU, however, certainly isn't flawed. It has been improved and enhanced greatly over the years, especially back from when it had separate institutions for each part of the old EEC back in the 1950s.
Also the EU seems to be paralyzed anyway, according to some news i have read, stating that since in 2017 there are votes in France and Germany, important decisions get to be postponed past that date. If thats true, then its design flaw in my eyes.
I have no idea what this about based on what you've said, but I could probably analyse it with more information. Can you post some links (in English though please, as I cannot read German)?
I fear that is wishfull thinking, especially when people in 2 or 3 years realize, that the world didnt end for Britain, when they left the EU (which i dont think it will, despite the usual panic making). If one more (large) country should leave now, i believe the EU is done for. But if the EU dosent change, dosent become more democratic, closer to the people, if it stays that somehow undefined, frightening monster, that can easily be blamed for everything bad happening, because it, due to its distance to the people, never managed to build up trust among them, i believe the EU will sooner or later fall apart.
I'd say that wishful thinking is believing that having referenda is the silver bullet to solving problems ;).
The claim that the the world would end for the UK if it left the EU was never made by the remain side.
The more the idea that something is remote, big, and frightening is said to be such in the media, the greater the perception that this is how it is becomes. The EU is nothing like this. It has a small bureaucracy (national government institutions and their civil service are all much larger), and is linked to the people through their governments and the European Parliament. What needs to change is the perception of the people and the only way to change that is much better education about the EU than that which there has been up until this point, especially in the UK.
The EU will not fall apart. In fact, all it would take for that kind of discussion to desist is the economic situation to improve across Europe. That was slowly starting to happen before the UK left. The danger now is that this is harmed by Brexit. An adverse economic situation always makes life difficult for the EU to move forwards (it faced a similar problem in the from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s).
-
Merged into discussion from a separate topic to avoid breaking the character limit. Yes, my response was too long to comply with the 20,000 character count limit.
I like that the only reason people would vote to leave is because they're stupid. I love the... Bourgeoisie of it. The assumption that only those of high society know what's best for the plebes.
Except, the whole problem of looking at the people below you as plebes. And treating them like plebes. And calling them idiots. And then wondering why the proletariat keep revolting. Of course, the peasants have always been revolting, but now they're rebelling.
The unwashed masses eventually get sick of being stepped on and being told it's for their own good. The stay side did not convince people that staying was in their best interest. So people voted to leave. They are pursuing what they believe is best for themselves. Right or wrong plays no part in it. Truth doesn't matter, only belief. Belief toppled a Prime Minister, while truth got buried in the dust somewhere.
You have introduced those derogatory terms into the debate. Nobody else here has.
Remain lost this vote because of the following reasons:
1. The right/far right supporters of the Conservative Party/UKIP hate the EU and everything it stands for and voted to leave. They themselves are in a minority in the UK, but UKIP activists made sure to go around working class council estates in the north of England and other deprived areas to ensure that their xenophobic agenda about the migrants was heard.
2. Labour's core vote, much of which rarely votes now, turned out in force (see the working class comment in point 1) to punish Cameron and Osborne (who campaigned strongly for remain) because they felt their lives had been made worse by austerity. They weren't even thinking about the EU and just wanted to punish the government.
3. Some elements of Labour's core vote was whipped up into a frenzy about immigration by the press, the UKIP activists, and their own lack of understanding of the issue. They did vote against the EU, but based on a lie. They believed that a vote to leave the EU would stop immigration into the UK. It will not.
4. Remain's campaign spent too much time talking about negative consequences and not enough focus was given to the benefits of being in the EU.
Those are four main reasons off the top of my head. Others will emerge in the coming days.
I'll give you an amen. AMEN! How could I have misinterpreted someone saying that ignorant, stupid people vote for column A actually meant that only ignorant, stupid people voted that way. I'm sure there was a subtle implication that educated, intelligent people could rationally vote for leaving. Certainly no stupid, ignorant people voted to stay. Only well educated, intelligent folks voted to stay. There's no daemonization of the opposing faction, no sir! You must be much more clever than I. I just looked at the words that were there and took them at face value. Tea and medals for everyone... that voted to stay.
Please cut out the sarcasm, it's detracting from has been a very well framed and formulated debate.
You've misinterpreted the point I was making, although to be fair to you I could have worded it better. However, you're making a universal sweeping statement based on something which I was applying to some places. Please refer back to my post you quoted and you will see how I framed it.
Hartlepool is in an extremely run down area of North East England which has been in a very poor state since the collapse of the manufacturing and ship building industries decades ago. This was recognised by the EU, which has spent an awful lot of EU funding in North East England to try to improve the situation for people living there, but national government in this country has ignored the north-east and other areas of the north too for decades, and this adversely affected what happened in the referendum vote.
Let's also look at the analysis of the vote. Academics, pollsters, and other experts have the evidence to show that it was the lower someone's level of education was the greater the probability they would vote to leave. At no point did any of them claim that these people were stupid. It is a fact, however, that the level of education was a major factor in this referendum. Compared to general elections, many more people of a lower education turned out to vote (many are so apathetic about politics now they choose to stay at home), and this played a major role in the outcome. The more highly educated a person, the greater the probability they would vote to remain.
This does not mean that everyone with a lower level of education voted leave and that everyone with a higher level of education voted to remain. It shows the tendency of most people in these groups. You could see this reflected in the results. Areas with a lot of university influence generally voted to remain (Bath, Bristol, Newcastle, Oxford and Oxfordshire, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and Exeter, for example). Also some cities dominated by working class Labour voters which did vote to leave, such as Nottingham, only did so by a small margin, owing to the presence of a large university and its staff and students living there.
It is, therefore, not about daemonising people. Far from it. That has already been done by the leave side and how it has treated the whole issue of migration. EU nationals living in this country are scared and worried about their future as are many British people living in EU member states. It's about explaining how and why different groups of people voted the way in which they did.
The "stay" camp tried to win with well reasoned, educated, clever arguments. They lost to what appears to be fear and anger.
Many of them did, but Cameron and Osborne went too far with scare stories about the economic situation if the UK left, which did not help. Corbyn, by contrast, was lacking in any sort of conviction and passion, which didn't help to solve the problem of Labour voters defecting to vote leave.
Finally, if you want to talk about manipulation. Rummy made excellent points in his response to you about that. The most pernicious and harmful manipulation that has taken place concerns migration and has been carried out by both Vote Leave and Farage.
First Vote Leave's claims that it would spend £350 million pounds on the NHS instead of the EU budget. This was a blatant lie for two reasons. First, that wasn't the amount sent to the EU every week, because it did not include the British rebate (so a misleading figure) and second it was never going to be spent on the NHS. A prominent leave member of the Conservative Party, Sarah Wollaston (a former doctor) defected to the remain camp on the basis of that lie. Farage has also let the cat of the bag that this money will not be spent on the NHS, as Rummy has stated.
The less well educated in this country were sold a lie by Vote Leave and Farage on the NHS, and on public services in general, which, combined with Farage's horrific and grossly misleading poster on the subject, was one of the worst forms of manipulation of the voting public I have ever seen.
Well by applying a minimum participation rate, you basically make sure that only matters of public interest make it through to the point, where a binding decision is made.
You could also introduce a rule, that you need to collect a certain amount of signatures before a referendum is even started. Would also cut down on the costs for the public, since the person or organization trying to go for a referendum needs to organize a campaign to gather those signatures with their own money.
Who decides what a matter of public interest is? Who would pay for the costs of running regular referenda (they are expensive)? Who would formulate the questions and guarantee their objectivity? How would you combat voter fatigue? How would a turnout threshold be agreed to make the referendum valid? Would you make it compulsory to vote?
There are too many questions to answer about the concept your proposing and too much subsequently instability. Having substantial experience of the UK electorate I can assure you that they don't like voting on a regular basis. I really don't see this as a way forward at all.
The UK already has a better system for the second part of what you are proposing. Online petitions which attract more than 100,000 signatures must be responded to by the government in some way, and some even have to be debated in parliament.
Concerning the UK, all i can say is, that even if they truly decide to leave the EU, i doubt that it will hurt them too much long term. While the EU right now is all about blustering and "making an example" (which is an idiotic reaction in my eyes, as it just drives the UK farther away and will make coming joint projects all the more difficult and really just makes the EU look like a dick, after all the UK has been, and right now still is a net payer), there are a couple of tricks to circumvent the toll barriers and there will still be enough EU members willing to make bilateral contracts with the UK.
I disagree. First, I empathise with the strong reaction in Europe. The UK has messed the other member states around for years, demanding a rebate, being awkward about so many policy areas, opting in, opting out, and being generally obstructive in so many areas of policy making. It's, therefore, entirely understandable that the EU has reacted in the way in which it has.
You also have to take account of the fact that a message needs to be sent to other member states with right wing forces similar to UKIP that attempts to leave would not be easy. As a result, a lot of this is about sending a political message more widely, not picking on the UK in particular.
Also, nobody, to my knowledge, has stated that the UK will be 'made an example of'. Where did you read that? Juncker, Tusk, and Schultz have all just stated the facts in a very dispassionate and cold manner, yes, but that is all that they have done.
What might hurt is, if the scots and ireland decides to leave the UK, though i am no way deep enough into UK politics to know what the chances for this are (the scots recently decided after all to stay, though one of the reasons for the decision was the fear, that they would leave the EU, if they became independent, which is a mood point now of course) and what kind of impact this would cause.
The chance of Scotland becoming an independent nation in the near future is now high. There will be a lot of pressure put on the Westminster Parliament to grant a second referendum there. The SNP is very powerful in Scotland and is going to be hard to ignore.
There will be no referendum for the foreseeable future in Northern Ireland, for various complicated reasons linked to the troubled history there.
-
Honest question Irisado. Are you ok after this vote? I know how much the EU means to you so this can't be easy. :(
-
Who decides what a matter of public interest is? Who would pay for the costs of running regular referenda (they are expensive)? Who would formulate the questions and guarantee their objectivity? How would you combat voter fatigue? How would a turnout threshold be agreed to make the referendum valid? Would you make it compulsory to vote?
1. The public itself by collecting signatures.
2. They would be far less regular then you might think. How often does switzerland run referenda? And many of those are concerning local topics, so usually only people living at that place are even allowed to vote. Nation wide referendas dont happen that often, judging by the experience of countries who actually run them. Also running a campaign to collect said signatures would also be expensive, so only topics that really concern a lot of people would be put forward. Also internet solution. But i am starting to repeat myself.
3. The person or organization that runs the campaign.
4. Doubt that this would be a factor, we are not talking about dozens referendas a year after all.
5. By the people who make and pass the laws (legislation) id suppose? Or would you like every referendum to have its own threshold? That would be highly impractical. You could argue about several thresholds, like changes to the constitution maybe needing 75% or so, while for other topics a simple minority is enough.
6. No, making a vote, especially for a referendum, compulsery kinda defeats its point. Also kinda curious, why you ask that one, since i cant think of any public vote that is actually compulsery.
I disagree. First, I empathise with the strong reaction in Europe. The UK has messed the other member states around for years, demanding a rebate, being awkward about so many policy areas, opting in, opting out, and being generally obstructive in so many areas of policy making. It's, therefore, entirely understandable that the EU has reacted in the way in which it has.
Thats true, but for starters, the EU agreed to the UKs special status in the first place. So they can hardly hold it against them now. Also i have been working the last 5 years on construction projects and facility management. One important lesson i have learned is, that its very important to stay on good terms with people you might need later on again, even if you dont like them. Pissing people off might give you a moments satisfaction but can potentially cause you a lot of trouble and unnecessary work later on (though there are situations where this is neccessary). In other words, id have preffered a more constructive and grown up reaction from the EU.
Also, nobody, to my knowledge, has stated that the UK will be 'made an example of'. Where did you read that? Juncker, Tusk, and Schultz have all just stated the facts in a very dispassionate and cold manner, yes, but that is all that they have done.
I recalled it from a newspaper article i can no longer find, but i might be wrong on that one. There is an article however, where Jean Claude Juncker states in an interview that "Der Deserteur wird nicht mit offenen Armen empfangen. Das steht für die Haltung der Kommission ebenso wie für die Einstellung anderer Regierungen" (the deserteur wont be received with open arms. This reflects the position of the commission and the positions of the other governments). This was actually shortly before the vote and i doubt that it was a helpfull remark. The UK didnt desert (which is an illegal act that can get you killed), they are using an legal option that is open for every country should they chose so.
There is also this remark by the chairman of the foreign commision in the Europaparlament Elmar Brok, who said "Das war eine Fehlentscheidung, für die bitter bezahlt werden muss" (This was a wrong decision, for which has to be dearly paid).
Though i just read, that the UK solution to the referendum seems to be to postpone the Brexit until further notice. Now this i can see pissing the EU off.
-
If we're postponing the Brexit process it's because we'll need a new prime minister, and also, there's elections in Germany and Frnace coming up yes? Maybe we need to let the dust settle before continuing.
-
Honest question Irisado. Are you ok after this vote? I know how much the EU means to you so this can't be easy. :(
Of all the questions raised in this topic, this is the only one I'm going to say is best left unanswered. Thank you for your concern though, I appreciate it :).
1. The public itself by collecting signatures.
2. They would be far less regular then you might think. How often does switzerland run referenda? And many of those are concerning local topics, so usually only people living at that place are even allowed to vote. Nation wide referendas dont happen that often, judging by the experience of countries who actually run them. Also running a campaign to collect said signatures would also be expensive, so only topics that really concern a lot of people would be put forward. Also internet solution. But i am starting to repeat myself.
3. The person or organization that runs the campaign.
4. Doubt that this would be a factor, we are not talking about dozens referendas a year after all.
5. Uhm by the guys who make and pass the laws (legislation) id suppose? Or would you like every referendum to have its own threshold? That would be highly impractical. You could argue about several thresholds, like changes to the constitution maybe needing 75% or so, while for other topics a simple minority is enough.
6. No, making a vote, especially for a referendum, compulsery kinda defeats its point. Also kinda curious, why you ask that one, since i cant think of any public vote that is actually compulsery.
1. Who decides which members of the public are authorised to do this? How many groups would there be? What about existing campaign groups that lobby parliament on behalf of the citizens? What would happen to them? What about charitable organisations? I just don't think that what you're proposing is realistic.
2. What about those who have no internet access? They would be excluded from internet led initiatives. Also, comparing to Switzerland doesn't get us very far. Its population is small and its an outlier country, which does not fully engage in many international institutions. Other EU states are much more interconnected and are much more involved in global affairs on one side of an argument or another. They cannot, therefore, open up issues to referenda like the Swiss can.
3. Again though, who decides which person or organisation should run it? There needs to be oversight.
4. We agree to differ in that case.
5. Too confusing. Most voters would find all that very complex. You'd need one flat threshold in my opinion. It would also need to be very high, so at least 75%. You also then run the risk of paralysis, as that sort of turnout for elections or referenda is very hard to obtain in European countries, and that would lead to referenda failing to pass on the turnout threshold issue, but lowering it would reduce democratic legitimacy, so I see no effective way of making this work.
6. It is a legal requirement to vote in Australia. I'd have to check whether any other countries have that law. I was asking because making it compulsory is probably the only way to solve the democratic legitimacy problem I outlined in my response to point five.
Thats true, but for starters, the EU agreed to the UKs special status in the first place. So they can hardly hold it against them now. Also i have been working the last 5 years on construction projects and facility management. One important lesson i have learned is, that its very important to stay on good terms with people you might need later on again, even if you dont like them. Pissing people off might give you a moments satisfaction but can potentially cause you a lot of trouble and unnecessary work later on (though there are situations where this is neccessary). In other words, id have preffered a more constructive and grown up reaction from the EU.
I'd have preferred a more grown up and honest approach from Vote Leave, but we didn't get that. The UK has responded to too many EU initiatives in a hostile manner down the years, partly because of domestic pressure from the public, but also partly because of a misplaced nostalgia for the days of the the British Empire and a lost global influence since the Suez Crisis. You can argue that two wrongs don't make a right, however, the important thing to remember is that people get back what they give out and this applies to member states too.
A lot of damage was done by the Thatcher approach to negotiating at the EU in the 1980s. She got what she wanted, but irritated a lot of others in the process. That friction has never really gone away. Blair did mend a lot of bridges, only to burn most of them again over Iraq. The UK has always been half in and half out for many of the core EU member states, yet has wanted special treatment, and this wanting to have its cake and eat it approach has generated a lot of resentment.
For what it's worth once some of the pain and sadness has died down a little, I think that you'll hear far less acrimonious statements in public, but the tension will never disappear. The EU will try to maintain cordial relations with the UK and vice-versa, and, over time, this cordiality will probably be established. However, there will never be the same level of warmth that is extended to members of the EU, and those of us who never wanted the UK to be in such a situation will be the ones who will feel the effects of that.
I recalled it from a newspaper article i can no longer find, but i might be wrong on that one. There is an article however, where Jean Claude Juncker states in an interview that "Der Deserteur wird nicht mit offenen Armen empfangen. Das steht für die Haltung der Kommission ebenso wie für die Einstellung anderer Regierungen" (the deserteur wont be received with open arms. This reflects the position of the commission and the positions of the other governments). This was actually shortly before the vote and i doubt that it was a helpfull remark. The UK didnt desert (which is an illegal act that can get you killed), they are using an legal option that is open for every country should they chose so.
There is also this remark by the chairman of the foreign commision in the Europaparlament Elmar Brok, who said "Das war eine Fehlentscheidung, für die bitter bezahlt werden muss" (This was a wrong decision, for which has to be dearly paid).
Though i just read, that the UK solution to the referendum seems to be to postpone the Brexit until further notice. Now this i can see pissing the EU off.
I cannot comment on those articles, other than to say that in the UK media, much of which is very hostile to the EU institutions, I have yet to hear anything like this being quoted. Juncker's statement to the media as a whole was just factual and to the point. There was no emotion there.
Elmar Brok has been critical, but I seem to remember that this before the referendum not after it, so that would put a different contextual meaning on what he was saying.
There is a move to delay activating article 50 over here. The stated reason is unclear, but the underlying reason is that Brexit is totally unprepared and has nothing in place, and with Cameron having announced his resignation, he's not going to be interested in conducting the negotiation, so it's very unclear what is going to happen between now and October (when the new Conservative leader and de facto Prime Minister is chosen). The EU and its member states will see this, understandably, as yet another instance where it is being made to wait over what it's going to do by the British being awkward, so it will not go down very well.
-
1. Who decides which members of the public are authorised to do this? How many groups would there be? What about existing campaign groups that lobby parliament on behalf of the citizens? What would happen to them? What about charitable organisations? I just don't think that what you're proposing is realistic.
1. I really dont understand your problem here. You seem to pretend, that the concept of a referendum is something entierly new, when its actually a common concept among many countries, through the results are not often binding (although a politician completly ignoring such a vote might find himself out of a job soon).
2. What about those who have no internet access? They would be excluded from internet led initiatives. Also, comparing to Switzerland doesn't get us very far. Its population is small and its an outlier country, which does not fully engage in many international institutions. Other EU states are much more interconnected and are much more involved in global affairs on one side of an argument or another. They cannot, therefore, open up issues to referenda like the Swiss can.
Voting via Mail comes to mind as an alternative way. Or via an official PC terminal in a voting chamber.
3. Again though, who decides which person or organisation should run it? There needs to be oversight.
Why? Though I agree, that there needs to be an agency where you have to registrate the referendum and turn in the neccessary signatures and that then organizes the actual vote process.
5. Too confusing. Most voters would find all that very complex. You'd need one flat threshold in my opinion. It would also need to be very high, so at least 75%. You also then run the risk of paralysis, as that sort of turnout for elections or referenda is very hard to obtain in European countries, and that would lead to referenda failing to pass on the turnout threshold issue, but lowering it would reduce democratic legitimacy, so I see no effective way of making this work.
Again i think you are overthinking things. Introducing maybe 2 thresholds dosent sound to complicated too me. There just needs to be a clear definition when which threshold applies.
-
1. I really dont understand your problem here. You seem to pretend, that the concept of a referendum is something entierly new, when its actually a common concept among many countries, through the results are not often binding (although a politician completly ignoring such a vote might find himself out of a job soon).
They are an unfamiliar concept for the UK, and quite a few other EU countries, because they are hardly ever held. The concept itself may be known, but people do not necessarily know how to treat them. There's a high danger of protest voting against the government of the day, regardless of the issue on the paper, which undermines their democratic legitimacy.
I think you've successfully pointed out why the non-binding element isn't a good case for having them ;).
Voting via Mail comes to mind as an alternative way. Or via an official PC terminal in a voting chamber.
The first runs into the problem of people have to make their minds up before the campaign has finished, in some cases long before. This potentially influenced the outcome of this referendum, because the number of leave votes was higher among postal voters, according to some sources, and the postal votes had to be submitted at a time when the Brexit argument was doing well in the polls. There is, therefore, a danger that voters may change their minds as the campaign progress, but will have already committed to a vote. That's not something I like the idea of.
The PC terminal looks good on paper, but the issue I see with that is security and authenticity. There are quite a few voters and technicians who are rather good at hacking into, or otherwise tampering with, computers.
Why?
To remove accusations of bias in terms of who writes the question, who monitor the running the count, to choose which will be the official campaigns for and against, and to oversee the overall running of any campaign.
As you can see, that all starts to get quite expensive when carried out on a regular basis.
Again i think you are overthinking things. Introducing maybe 2 thresholds dosent sound to complicated too me. There just needs to be a clear definition when which threshold applies.
It doesn't sound to complicated to me either, but I know from when I used to teach in adult education, and from my discussions with colleagues who work across quite a wide range of different community teaching that mature students and adult learners (to use the jargon) find any change to the voting system to be very confusing (which is one reason why so few bothered to even vote in the AV referendum), and want to stick avidly to the current system.
That attitude may vary across Europe, but in the UK there is a seemingly ironclad resistance to changing the voting system.
-
There's a high danger of protest voting against the government of the day, regardless of the issue on the paper, which undermines their democratic legitimacy.
The danger is there of course, but less so if people get more often the opportunity to shape the course of their country. Because at the end of the day, the people can hardly blame politicians for a course of action, they have voted for themselves.
To remove accusations of bias in terms of who writes the question, who monitor the running the count, to choose which will be the official campaigns for and against, and to oversee the overall running of any campaign.
As you can see, that all starts to get quite expensive when carried out on a regular basis.
You where probably already in the course of writing your reply, when i edited my post a bit here :)
Why remove bias from the questions (if they includ any)? If the question is heavily biased then its part of the poll. A referendum wouldnt really make sense, if the goverment choses the formulations of its very text :P
An answer to the other points i edited into the post you replied to.
Also costs are relative. As stated, someone trying to set up a referendum needs to gather signatures first. At this point that person/organization just needs to registrate the referendum. If he dosent deliver enough signatures it already ends there. With neglectible costs for the public.
It doesn't sound to complicated to me either, but I know from when I used to teach in adult education, and from my discussions with colleagues who work across quite a wide range of different community teaching that mature students and adult learners (to use the jargon) find any change to the voting system to be very confusing (which is one reason why so few bothered to even vote in the AV referendum), and want to stick avidly to the current system.
That attitude may vary across Europe, but in the UK there is a seemingly ironclad resistance to changing the voting system.
Well as someone who recently had to try to wrap his head around a 1.5m broad and DINA4 size long election paper, that contained an awfull lot of parties and their respective votable members (for a city council election no less!) i dont understand the problem :P
-
If we're postponing the Brexit process it's because we'll need a new prime minister, and also, there's elections in Germany and Frnace coming up yes? Maybe we need to let the dust settle before continuing.
Part of the delay is also because we're now at step 2 where:
Step 1: BREXIT.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit.
I suspect Leave wasn't that sure of success and didn't actually plan for the outcome. Now they're trying to come up with a process and policies that, hopefully, won't cause the whole place to burn down (any further). You'll notice the main suspects have become very quiet and have somewhat stopped crowing.
One of the plus sides is that the French government is keeping the Calais agreement intact. It was bilateral UK/FR rather than the EU. The Mayor of Calais wanted to amphetamine parrot can it and that would've added more fuel to the fire.
-
That's why I backed out in the end. There wasn't an exit strategy.
-
Lonewolf: Specifically on the issue of bias, there were lengthy discussions about how to word the EU referendum question to avoid one side or the other being unhappy or saying that it favoured the other side. A body has to oversee that and it cannot necessarily be the government, as it may favour one side or the other. The UK has the electoral commission for such matters, but whether there would be enough personnel to regularly oversee questions is open to debate. Either way, I suspect that it would need more funding to bolster its staffing and resources. As for other European countries, they may have the necessary institutions in place, but if not, again there would be costs involved, which could be more significant than would appear to be the case.
I just don't think that the potential benefits of referenda outweigh the risks when it comes down to it, especially in the UK. There's just too much of a possibility of people exploiting them to protest, rather than to vote on the issue, and there is always the risk that complex issues could be resolved unsatisfactorily by misguided or ill informed voting.
That's why I backed out in the end. There wasn't an exit strategy.
You mean backed out of voting for leave, I assume ;)?
-
Please cut out the sarcasm, it's detracting from has been a very well framed and formulated debate.
Which applies to me as well, I'll dial it back so as not to further sully what's been an informative discussion.
-
Yes, I, the most ardent eu hater you could find, backed out of voting to leave. :P
-
This was also quite the analysis. (https://www.facebook.com/tom.short.351/posts/10155134392909152) Yes, yes, Facebook, I don't use it either but bother through it. I may have to give Cameron at least some credit in his response, even if only to have him thrown into a volcano.
-
Apparently, there is a suggestion doing the rounds that says that there is a possibility that England and Wales could leave the EU but Scotland and N. Ireland could remain within it. And all without breaking up the UK!
This idea uses the relationship between Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands as its model. The latter are both dependencies of Denmark, but unlike Denmark they are not members of the EU. And this arrangement seems to work out OK.
Obviously it's more complicated than that but it might work. Maybe. :-\
-
Depends on timing, at the very least.
They're members of the EU based on being within the UK. Hence, if the UK leaves, they do as well. Now, if/when they become independent states, they'd have to apply for ascension on their own from the beginning. Sure, of the 35 chapters they'd probably be some if not all of the way there but they'd have to go through the process. That'd take some time due to, you know, bureaucracy.
It's a matter of jurisdiction basically.
-
But could it be done whilst maintaining the UK?
Also, the referendum result might revitalise the Liberal Denocrats. They're the only party apart from ukip who are unanimous on their opinion of the EU. They all agree that we should be in it. They're the anti-ukip.
All those people who voted to remain or voted to leave but now regret it could throw their weight behind them. Personally I would like to see that.
-
But could it be done whilst maintaining the UK?
Well, no. It's an either/or thing. Best to avoid it entirely.
The Lib Dems? Really?
-
Lonewolf: Specifically on the issue of bias, there were lengthy discussions about how to word the EU referendum question to avoid one side or the other being unhappy or saying that it favoured the other side. A body has to oversee that and it cannot necessarily be the government, as it may favour one side or the other. The UK has the electoral commission for such matters, but whether there would be enough personnel to regularly oversee questions is open to debate. Either way, I suspect that it would need more funding to bolster its staffing and resources. As for other European countries, they may have the necessary institutions in place, but if not, again there would be costs involved, which could be more significant than would appear to be the case.
Well the text of a referendum would need to be checked if its within the boundaries set by a countries laws as part of its registration process, but lets maybe talk about numbers. You tend to be very vague when you argue the costs safe, that they are high. About how many digits are you talking? If the UK already has an institution in place to handle such requests, when its just a matter of staffing. And honestly, once the further above mentioned equipment is in place, i doubt that we are talking about more than 10-20 additional personel to handle the registration. And they might be dwidling their thumps too often enough, because as said, the real work would only start once signatures are gathered and even then, if you manage to make the whole system mostly IT based, you dont even need people anymore to count votes, just a well working IT support if problems should arrive.
Also from an national economy point of view, as long as the money stays in the country, it will be recollected anyway in the form of taxes and creating additional jobs (Ha! Those 2 semesters with 2 hours weekly of national economys now really pay of! :P )
I just don't think that the potential benefits of referenda outweigh the risks when it comes down to it, especially in the UK. There's just too much of a possibility of people exploiting them to protest, rather than to vote on the issue, and there is always the risk that complex issues could be resolved unsatisfactorily by misguided or ill informed voting.
Well then we have to agree to disagree on this point because I firmly believe that a higher participation of a countries population (if that country has reached a point, where the majority of people have a more or less high education and is stable) in the political process will weaken radical elements, not strenghten them.
-
This was also quite the analysis. (https://www.facebook.com/tom.short.351/posts/10155134392909152) Yes, yes, Facebook, I don't use it either but bother through it. I may have to give Cameron at least some credit in his response, even if only to have him thrown into a volcano.
That's actually an excellent piece of analysis. Thanks for finding that gem amidst all the unhelpful comments that are posted there. I think that there is a lot of mileage in what he is saying, and that Cameron has actually pulled off a very understated piece of revenge. That doesn't let him off the hook, as you say, but it does make life very difficult for Brexit, which, after all their deceit, they are in no position to complain about.
Well, no. It's an either/or thing. Best to avoid it entirely.
The Lib Dems? Really?
Indeed. The mechanisms are not in place in the treaties for dependencies or regions to join the EU. Look at Gibraltar for example. It would rejoin the EU if it could, because this result is very problematic for its people and trade, but it's not a nation state, so it cannot.
Scotland would have to become an independent nation state, not just be a region of the UK, to join the EU. Even then, it still has to be accepted by all the EU member states, and it has run into a problem. Spain is threatening to use its veto on any Scottish application. This is not because the Spanish government has anything against Scotland though. It's because Spain has its own concerns about Catalan independence and does not want to have Cataluña try to hold an independence referendum and subsequently join the EU as a separate state.
The Liberal Democrats, the party I have voted for ever since I was able to vote, are now saying that they will fight the next general election on a platform to take the UK back into the EU without a referendum. I fully support that, even though the UK would never gain back the opt outs it has had up until now.
Well the text of a referendum would need to be checked if its within the boundaries set by a countries laws as part of its registration process
Who's going to do the checking? The government couldn't do it, so this goes back to my point about having to have a separate body and all the costs that would entail.
You tend to be very vague when you argue the costs safe, that they are high. About how many digits are you talking?
The estimated cost of the EU referendum is £142 million. That is not the final figure though, which doesn't seem to have been published yet. Spending millions of pounds on referenda to decide on every piece of legislation is not sustainable or practical.
Well then we have to agree to disagree on this point because I firmly believe that a higher participation of a countries population (if that country has reached a point, where the majority of people have a more or less high education and is stable) in the political process will weaken radical elements, not strenghten them.
That argument relies heavily on the majority of the population being highly educated (not true for the UK) and on people voting on the issue and not casting protest votes (again not true for the UK). It's one of those concepts which looks good on paper, but doesn't work when applied to reality.
-
Who's going to do the checking? The government couldn't do it, so this goes back to my point about having to have a separate body and all the costs that would entail.
I dont see a particular reason why an official institution couldnt check the text, as long as they dont change it, but i could also see that the initiator simply has to fork out the money and go to a specialized lawyer to let it check over.
The estimated cost of the EU referendum is £142 million. That is not the final figure though, which doesn't seem to have been published yet. Spending millions of pounds on referenda to decide on every piece of legislation is not sustainable or practical.
*sigh* I still wonder how you arrive at "referenda to decide on every piece of legislation". You seem to somehow believe that there are hundreds of people in the UK, who have the will, money and support to run a referendum on things like "required percentage of fruit, so that a fruitpie can be called "fruit pie"".
You have already a great limiting factor with the amount of signatures neccessary for a referendum (which is 100k in Switzerland at around 8 mio population, which would translate to around 700k for the UK). I just checked the last 10 years on Switzerlands referenda history. They have on average around 9 referenda a year and still arent bancrupt. They also combine the voting for several agenda to one day, which drastically reduces costs.
That argument relies heavily on the majority of the population being highly educated (not true for the UK) and on people voting on the issue and not casting protest votes (again not true for the UK). It's one of those concepts which looks good on paper, but doesn't work when applied to reality.
Are you reffering to just the UK? Because there are countries with binding referendas, even Germany has them on all levels of government. And i assure you, after the Brexit debacle that just happened, the next time a referendum comes around, even the UK population you seem to have so little faith in, will take the time and inform themselves before they cast their vote, because know they have seen that their vote actually matters. Its called learning and growing.
-
I dont see a particular reason why an official institution couldnt check the text, as long as they dont change it, but i could also see that the initiator simply has to fork out the money and go to a specialized lawyer to let it check over.
Impartiality. All institutions which are part of the civil service are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as favouring the government. The result is that you have to have an independent institution, and that goes back to my previous point about costs and staffing.
The impartiality argument also applies to individuals hiring other individuals. It might work if the highest court in the land were to decide, but that's kind of outside their remit. Their role would be to adjudicate on legal challenges to the question or the result.
*sigh* I still wonder how you arrive at "referenda to decide on every piece of legislation".
I was under the impression that you were proposing that all legislation needed to be decided via referenda. Have I misunderstood?
You have already a great limiting factor with the amount of signatures neccessary for a referendum (which is 100k in Switzerland at around 8 mio population, which would translate to around 700k for the UK). I just checked the last 10 years on Switzerlands referenda history. They have on average around 9 referenda a year and still arent bancrupt. They also combine the voting for several agenda to one day, which drastically reduces costs.
I'm sure that it works very well for Switzerland, but it's not a suitable model for other European states to follow. If it were, they would have adopted it years ago. Switzerland has a unique position in the world and Europe in terms of its neutral approach to global affairs and its economic and banking systems. Other countries do not function like Switzerland.
Are you reffering to just the UK?
Yes.
And i assure you, after the Brexit debacle that just happened, the next time a referendum comes around, even the UK population you seem to have so little faith in, will take the time and inform themselves before they cast their vote, because know they have seen that their vote actually matters. Its called learning and growing.
Considering that had the opportunity to do that after the AV referendum (where nearly everybody stayed at home and the majority of those who did vote used it to punish Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats without making an effort to understand whether it would be a better electoral system), I am dubious that they would take the opportunity this time either.
-
I was under the impression that you were proposing that all legislation needed to be decided via referenda. Have I misunderstood?
I dont think that i said such a thing. The closest would be my proposal in my first post to make a referendum mandatory 10 or so years after joining the EU. The reasons for this i have stated before.
I'm sure that it works very well for Switzerland, but it's not a suitable model for other European states to follow. If it were, they would have adopted it years ago. Switzerland has a unique position in the world and Europe in terms of its neutral approach to global affairs and its economic and banking systems. Other countries do not function like Switzerland.
Maybe, but as stated, Germany for example also allows binding referenda, though they arent that often. I didnt research other european countries, but wouldnt be surprised if there are a couple more.
Considering that had the opportunity to do that after the AV referendum (where nearly everybody stayed at home and the majority of those who did vote used it to punish Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats without making an effort to understand whether it would be a better electoral system), I am dubious that they would take the opportunity this time either.
I think the shock now was quite a bit larger. But time will tell.
-
Getting back to the fallout from this referendum, it's very rare for me to agree with Alastair Campbell, but he is spot on: BBC News (UK) on Twitter: ""If Boris is prime minister, I will be ashamed to be (https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/747107494976118784).
I remember when I watched the Vote Leave trio respond to their victory and Cameron's resignation, they did look as miserable as Campbell suggests. They have no plan and have been totally caught off guard by Cameron's resignation.
-
To be fair, the government should have a plan. It is their job after all to plan for contingencies and emergencies. They've known for a while about the vote and should have had some outline/guidelines for what to do in either eventuality. Leave should have one as well, to be sure, yet the onus is more on the government as they had the information and resources to get something formulated.
In today's news, Leave didn't make promises, merely stated possibilities. What a bunch of outrageously sexy lycra-clad pixies.
-
I agree. The government ought to have had a plan in place, and that was a latest in a long list of blunders from calling the referendum in the first place, how it was run, and the failure to plan for the wrong result.
Leave are just missing in action now. They're desperately trying to come up with a plan, all the while saying that they didn't promise what they actually promised on freedom of movement, the NHS, immigration, or for that matter anything. The fact that they have deceived people is clear for all to see, but far too few are paying attention, sadly.
-
The Daily Mail has actually started telling people the truth about the consequences and from the comment sections people are not happy. It's darkly amusing to read as people suddenly realise they've been lied to and didn't look hard enough to find out.
-
Well, as said, people are starting to learn their lesson...
What i really dont get is the big surprise and lack of planing that is evident on all sides. The polls for/vs Brexit have been pretty much tied for quite some time.
-
The Daily Mail has actually started telling people the truth about the consequences and from the comment sections people are not happy. It's darkly amusing to read as people suddenly realise they've been lied to and didn't look hard enough to find out.
Link?
-
People have been showing screen shots on Twitter. Here's some from the other day:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-mail-has-explained-what-brexit-means-and-its-readers-seem-shocked--Z1772TI4aNW (http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-mail-has-explained-what-brexit-means-and-its-readers-seem-shocked--Z1772TI4aNW)
-
The Daily Mail has actually started telling people the truth
Now that really is a first.
What i really dont get is the big surprise and lack of planing that is evident on all sides. The polls for/vs Brexit have been pretty much tied for quite some time.
Everyone in positions of power thought that remain would win, even if only by a small margin, so nothing was done.
People have been showing screen shots on Twitter. Here's some from the other day:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-mail-has-explained-what-brexit-means-and-its-readers-seem-shocked--Z1772TI4aNW (http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-mail-has-explained-what-brexit-means-and-its-readers-seem-shocked--Z1772TI4aNW)
It dawns on them now. As I mentioned to someone the other day, they don't know what they've lost until they suddenly realise what they won't have any more.
-
Well at the very least it will serve as an example for other EU members.
-
Another very interesting interpretation here.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ (http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ)
I'm not as familiar with UK politics, as everyone else posting, but it seems very plausible.
-
That was the Facebook thing I linked too earlier. Quite the fascinating analysis. Makes me almost respect Cameron for a couple of minutes as the potential for four dimensional chess revenge is just too good to ignore.
-
The latest plan from Boris Johnson is that the UK is going to remain in the single market yet be able to restrict migration and freedom of movement. This is impossible within the structure of the treaties and is, therefore, impossible. It's pie in the sky thinking from Vote Leave, and demonstrates either their complete lack of understanding of the EU or their utter denial that the UK is so important that the treaties will be rewritten to accommodate it.
-
@ Wyddr, Irisado Yes, it does seem to be a trade/commonwealth thing, although I'm never really sure if we're part of the commonwealth or not, we compete in the commonwealth athletics, but otherwise, we don't really have much to do with Britain (well....obviously Trade linked to it in ways I'm not aware of..)
Btw, not sure if it's been mentioned (you guys really talk a lot, and I get lazy to read everything)
But I saw 2 different graphs, one showing that older people were more inclined to vote "leave" while younger people were more inclined to vote "stay'
And the second showing that older people had a much better turnout than younger people.
so, much like in SA, it would seem that voter apathy, especially among young adults, had a profound effect on the results :(
-
Ah, I wasn't sure if that was posted already. As TangiK'Zur mentioned, there's an awful lot of posts in this topic lol.
I am amazed by all the public interviews I see on the news every evening how much leave voters based there entire decision to leave on their xenophobia.
They Took Our Jobs - YouTube (https://youtu.be/rUTnNKhF-EU)
Is this the direction the world is going now? Our past election in Canada seemed to buck the latest trend, by punishing the Conservative party for their attempt to win votes through fear mongering, but if the Brexit vote and rise of Trump are any indication, the world is moving into a dangerous chapter.
-
Btw, not sure if it's been mentioned (you guys really talk a lot, and I get lazy to read everything)
But I saw 2 different graphs, one showing that older people were more inclined to vote "leave" while younger people were more inclined to vote "stay'
And the second showing that older people had a much better turnout than younger people.
so, much like in SA, it would seem that voter apathy, especially among young adults, had a profound effect on the results :(
This is correct. Just to add one caveat, the turnout among younger people was higher than usual, but still not high enough to counter the older vote, because there are more older voters and more of them vote.
It was the high turnout among the old Labour working class voters (who normally do not vote) to vote for Brexit though which was also a strong contributory factor in determining the outcome.
I am amazed by all the public interviews I see on the news every evening how much leave voters based there entire decision to leave on their xenophobia.
I touched on this with the comments about the Hartlepool interviews earlier in this topic, but it is important to emphasise just how much Vote Leave and Farage based the entire last few weeks of the campaign on immigration, sending extremely misleading and xenophobic literature through the post. Farage also produced that ghastly and misleading poster to stir yet more xenophobia.
-
The Young/Old divide in voting is very clear in the US, too. It's part of why Bernie Sanders lost the primary (massive support among young people, but young people don't turn out) and part of why Trump is still relevant - even though his support among young people is *historically* low, it doesn't much matter because you young whipper-snappers don't get off your asses to the polling booth and make sure the olds don't make dumb amphetamine parrot happen.
And we Middle Aged people just stand here, tear at our hair, and yell WHYYYYYY!?
(note: this is a bit unfair to young voters, as they are a proportionally smaller demographic than old folks in most of the places we're talking about here, but I'd also argue they're healthier and better able to get to the polls all on their own, so what the hell is their excuse, anyway? ;))
-
Just read an intresting article concerning the resons for the brexit. Forgive the in parts bad google translation, i tried to fix the worst blunders :P
"He looks so, the European enemy, not particularly educated, from the country, over 60. He also has something against the Internet. 71 percent of the people who voted for the Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union, see the Internet as a "force of evil" as a quick survey revealed after the vote. That the ancients have betrayed the youth, because they are no longer interested in the new, is the great mantra after this election.
It is obvious that all can not live in the English hinterland of the 17.4 million exit proponents, where besides the Internet also feminists, Green and foreigners are despised. Even in the London area, the epitome of casual, cosmopolitan life, 40 percent voted for the exit.
But that someone could have voted with a university degree and a job with perspective against the EU, just does not seem to imagine. When people voluntarily leave a club, the other club members praise as heaven on earth, such mortification can be coped best by declaring the rejection with the narrowness of the naysayers."...
"There may be somewhere in North Lincolnshire a few confused spirits who believe that the turning away from the continent promises paradise. Apparently there are also people that hold the UKIP leader Nigel Farage for a serious politician rather than a political handbag seller. But those who had not clogged eyes and ears in the past few weeks, knew that it is a risky thing to get out of the EU.
The conspicuous unwillingness to deal with the reasons for the election victory
Obama has warned of the withdrawal, the IMF and virtually every economist of distinction. That a majority of Britons still decided to choose independence, increased understandably the surprise of the Forsaken. Everywhere you can now read, many Britons never realized what they voted for and that they agree that they would reverse their decision. But that is part of the therapeutic program, which the media offers in this country for the psychological relief of their readers. Also, the myth, the elderly have the stolen the young ones the future, can be refuted easily. In the 18- to 24-year-olds, according to Sky Data, the turnout was 36 percent. If anything, the youths slept through the future.
With the shock of the election in the UK corresponds a conspicuous unwillingness to deal with the reasons for the victory. That one of the oldest democracies in the world could have lost confidence in the European institutions, because they valued their democracy, is a thought that has been quickly banished again. Instead, we hear how ruthlessly David Cameron was to call a referendum. One can not organize the referendum on such a complicated thing as the EU membership, is the put forward in numerous variations argument.
It is amazing how many commentators have parroted that, without being aware of what that says about their understanding of democracy. Translated, the phrase, elections are only good as long as coming out of what is deemed the part formed fit. Or how it brought the "Star" columnist Mickey Beisenherz to the point: "Democracy is a good thing The stupid thing is only that the stupid are allowed to take part.."
"Deepening" is the code word for the further transfer of power to Brussels
The fact that the announcement of Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, now also to ensure that in France and the Netherlands referendums are held, is seen as a threat, shows the fundamental weakness of the European project. What should we the people vote for, if not the key issues? About the level of roaming charges, or the sex ratio at the traffic light man?
If one where to take a real look for the Brexit reasons, one would have to be talking about the refugee policy. One will never be able to prove what part played Merkel's open borders policy for the outcome of the referendum. But the images of refugee columns toward Bavaria scared many Britons, that may be considered certain. If not even the disciplined Germans are willing or able to protect their borders, who should succeed then?
The voices were barely counted, there was already talk of Europe must deepen in response to the British referendum. "Deepening" is the code word for the further transfer of power to Brussels. The SPD chairman Sigmar Gabriel has submitted a plan for a "Community Growth Initiative", an "economic Schengen", as he calls it, which means nothing more than that the governments lose more power over their budget, that is then distributed to where the demand is seen in Brussel. It takes a very special relationship to reality, to pick out from the vote of the British the task to further weaken national parliaments.
Populists such as the EU-opponent Boris Johnson appeal to emotions. People like Gabriel are obsessed with the idea, policy can be purchase agreement by promising subsidies from above. One can argue which side has the worse man. In any case, it looks as if those that appeal to the heart rather than the wallet, right now are on top."
-
The majority of the British electorate has no idea what deepening means in the context of the EU, so that didn't play a role. Neither did Germany's migration policy.
What did play a role was the way in which leaving the EU was portrayed as being a silver bullet to stop migrants from coming to the UK. That was a totally false impression to make. You then had Farage and official Vote Leave campaign leaflets whipping up fear and ignorance about migration, which served only to drive some people to vote out of fear, ignorance, and prejudice, rather than based on the facts.
-
The sex ratio at the traffic light man? That's going to stick with me for a while.
The Farage advert was also *strikingly* similar with one from 1930's Germany, which was not lost upon many.
-
I blame google :P
-
The Farage advert was also *strikingly* similar with one from 1930's Germany, which was not lost upon many.
It's rather disturbing how often that comparison is being made these days.
-
Nigel Farage's Brexit Poster Is Being Likened To 'Nazi Propaganda', Compared To (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farages-eu-has-failed-us-all-poster-slammed-as-disgusting-by-nicola-sturgeon_uk_576288c0e4b08b9e3abdc483)
Actually relevant this time though.
Edit: Irisado - There you go, Brussels replies to Boris with basically "LOL, no." (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/brussels-rejects-boris-johnson-pipe-dream-over-single-market-access?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook) Editorials are not the best places to announce negotiation targets.
-
Problem for the EU is, they can not simply throw the UK out. The UK can basically take all the time they want to officially turn in the resign paper, as far as i know.
-
Which means business as usual for the EU and a continual political and economic amphetamine parrot storm for the UK government. Take today already, the UK lost it's AAA credit rating.
-
Problem for the EU is, they can not simply throw the UK out. The UK can basically take all the time they want to officially turn in the resign paper, as far as i know.
Indeed. Article 50 places the onus on the member state. The state wishing to withdraw has to invoke article 50. The EU institutions cannot.
The uncertainty this is going to cause has massive economic implications for many businesses and people. In my case, for example, it makes universities very uncertain about advertising jobs, because they do not yet know whether their lost research funding from the EU will be replaced in some form by the government, or whether some other agreement can be reached with the EU. I am dubious about either of these becoming a reality.
-
The Int'l Spectator on Twitter: "IMAGE: Demand for Irish passports in Belfast, (https://twitter.com/intlspectator/status/746693532123959297/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
-
This might sound like a stupid question, but people in Northern Ireland are entitled to Republic of Ireland passports?
-
This might sound like a stupid question, but people in Northern Ireland are entitled to Republic of Ireland passports?
Yes. Anyone born anywhere on the island is automatically entitled to one, as is anyone with Irish parents. Sometimes Irish grandparents is enough too.
My brother has already got his form.
-
I have found the perfect solution for the Remainers:
The UK joins Ireland!
-
So Boris has decided he didn't want to play Rush-Out Roulette after all and won't be
ruining running for leadership. It appears Cameron's scheme has taken one scalp after the fact. Now to find someone to claim the helm.
-
Michael Heseltine has emphasised just what a mess Boris has left in his wake:
There will be a profound sense of dismay and frankly contempt. He's ripped the party apart. He's created the greatest constitutional crisis of modern times. He knocked billions off the value of the nation's savings. He's like a general who leads his army to the sound of guns and at the sight of the battlefield abandoned the field. I have never seen so contemptible and irresponsible a situation. He must live with the shame of what he has done.
I agree with that assessment. It is worth pointing out that Gove has stabbed Boris in the back this morning as well, in a scene that is rather reminiscent of Macbeth. The whole affair of the leaked e-mail sent by Gove's wife to her husband rather gives it that air. There is no doubt that Gove has done the dirty on Boris, but for Boris to just opt to avoid standing caught most people by surprise.
It's all a very unappetising mess. The worst part of it is that it was all avoidable.
-
The next problem is Gove himself appears to be running and he's an arch level numpty in his own right. Mr. People Are Tired Of Experts doesn't appear qualified to run himself out into the ocean let alone a country.
-
What's worse is that I expect Gove to be one of the two final candidates chosen by Conservative MPs. Teresa May is likely to be the other. She's by far the better candidate out of the two, but she is still to the right of Cameron.
Gove is extremely divisive. He used to be a journalist. I remember reading one of this articles in The Times backing the war on Iraq. He also managed to upset all the teaching unions and most teachers when he was Secretary of State for Education during the coalition government, so he has plenty of form. He would be a terrible choice for prime minister.
-
It's all a very unappetising mess. The worst part of it is that it was all avoidable.
This describes approximately 75% of all political messes.
-
That may be a conservative estimate.
The point I was intending to make behind that statement was that there were two chances to avoid this. Normally, only the politicians can take the decision, for example, the Iraq War, however, in this case Cameron made the mistake of putting the referendum in his manifesto, thus committing himself to holding one, while the public made the mistake of not voting on the issue. Thus, there were two sets of people (politicians and the public) who made errors, instead of it just being the responsibility of the political elites.
-
Well, considering how many bridges Gove burnt in the past 24 hours I hope he never becomes Minister of Infrastructure.
May is a better candidate yet her actions regarding migration are still on the nose.
-
Interestingly, it is being claimed that Rupert Murdoch asked Gove to stand and Gove used to write for The Times. A connection is not difficult to establish there.
I also hope that May does triumph over Gove in a run off. While she has been very harsh with her immigration policy, she's at least more level headed and pragmatic than Gove, whose ideological drive to the right would be very worrying indeed.
-
I come very late to this topic (after the fact, actually), and I must applaud all of you for the level-headedness displayed in this discussion. Especially CC, to be convinced to do different than your initial standing point based on arguments takes guts and humility. I applaud you.
I would also like to express that I am glad for forums such as this, that would allow us to remain in contact, people from different parts in the world and with different access to news and information (or at least, different focus in what we get fed in newspapers and o the news), and discuss things not only about miniatures, but the important things too. Though borders may be drawn politically and economically, we can remain in contact.
Then, my part in this discussion. I was surprised when the leave vote won, and aghast when I saw interviews on the news with people saying things like "man, I voted leave, but I never thought it would really matter!". It baffles me.
What I have seen on the news here in the days since though, has scared me more. People who voted to leave have no idea on how to leave. Governments aren't prepared for that outcome either (except perhaps Cameron, that move was pretty brilliant).
What scares me most though is that violence against 'outlanders' has increased drastically in the UK after the vote. Lots of countries have negative feelings brewing against 'outlanders' (Mr. Wilders here in the Netherlands being a prime example), but it appears that in the UK, since the vote, it has gone past words and is going into defilement of buildings used mainly by polish people, to 'outlanders' being yelled and pushed out of busses and the like. To my (truth be told, not fully informed) mind it... 'feels' like the Kristallnacht in the 30's in Germany. As if the leave vote has given people 'leave' to hate on immigrants. And it frightens me something fierce.
-
Regarding the Netherlands, this may be of interest to you Vonny: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/06/28/nexit-on-the-cards-netherlands/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/06/28/nexit-on-the-cards-netherlands/). I don't know that much about Wilders, but he strikes me as being rather similar to Farage, albeit without the same level of charisma.
The Brexit vote certainly seems to have given a minority of individuals legitimacy, in their minds, to make racist remarks and be abusive to anyone not seen as English. One person even told a Welsh woman to go back home according to one report. It is all very worrying and I think that the parallel you have drawn is a valid one. I am very concerned by the racist and xenophobic behaviour going on. The one thing that I will say though is that it is still minority behaviour and a number of members of the public who did vote leave have also been very shocked by these comments.
In essence, what has happened here is that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Nigel Farage ran a very xenophobic anti-immigration campaign, which Farage then took a step further and ignited with that vile poster. It was all very unpleasant and none of them have yet taken any responsibility for their behaviour.
-
Thank you, Irisado, for that article. Seeing as there wasn't much news in there I didn't know, I guess I'm not that mal-informed about the situation here, at least.
I'm glad (and expected no less) that it is a minority doing those awful things over in Great Brittain, but the fact that they feel legitimized to do such things, and seem to be getting away with it to a certain extent, just feels... well off. But you already agreed with me on that point. Let's just hope the majority let their voices hear in opposition of this angry minority.
Also, thank you, Irisido, for taking your time out to still visit here and talk with us (me) about this stuff, and even looking up some stuff about the Netherlands specifically. This counts doubly so because of the troubling times in your own area.
-
Thank you for the applause vonny. :)
I'm also worried that the result has opened up a can of worms. I do not want anyone anywhere being attacked just because of who they are.
-
Farage is certainly getting away with it at the moment, I'm sorry to say, but, just like Boris Johnson, his ambitions will come to nought in the end. His xenophobic behaviour will also be exposed for exactly what it is too. It may just take longer than many people, myself included, would like.
Just on the articles, I'm a subscriber to a blog about European politics of all types, as I am very interested in politics across all European states. Reading how they have been reacting to Brexit has been very interesting.
Speaking of which, I haven't watched all of this yet, and I'm not sure whether any of you outside the UK can, but from the clips I've seen the French position is pretty well explained here: BBC News Channel - HARDtalk, Segolene Royal - French Environment Minister (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07htb52)
-
Many years later, so here we go then. Nothing sorted, nothing solved, a couple of governments later, and many Boy Snide's Outrageously Shiny Leather and PVC clad Soul Trains making themselves rich. Yay team.
-
Many years later, so here we go then. Nothing sorted, nothing solved, a couple of governments later, and many Boy Snide's Outrageously Shiny Leather and PVC clad Soul Trains making themselves rich. Yay team.
Different government, slightly different problem, but yeah man - I'm with you there.
I'm watching my government go full-on fascist and some 40% of my countrymen seem to be cool with it.
Horrible times we're living in, to be sure.
-
Many years later, so here we go then. Nothing sorted, nothing solved, a couple of governments later, and many Boy Snide's Outrageously Shiny Leather and PVC clad Soul Trains making themselves rich. Yay team.
Different government, slightly different problem, but yeah man - I'm with you there.
I'm watching my government go full-on fascist and some 40% of my countrymen seem to be cool with it.
Horrible times we're living in, to be sure.
It has been interesting to see how the US government has become party over people.
I catch bits and pieces from the trial in the senate, and the argument now seems to have swung towards "A President can do what he needs to go get elected because it's in the best interest of the people."
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets re-elected that he tries to go for additional terms beyond what is constitutionally allowed.
-
It's a beslubbering horror show. The Democrats gave a knock-out-of-the-park indictment. Zero doubt in anyone's mind that Trump is both guilty and that what he did warrants removal.
The Republicans have just decided they don't give a amphetamine parrot. They're doubling down. They're torching this democracy.
Everything, at this point, hinges on November. It's terrifying.
And this is not to make light of what's going on in the UK, either. I understand you guys are going to wind up with medicine shortages? Isn't your economy going to tank now? And, Christ, if the only country you have to lean on is the US...Trump is going to beslubber you over, straight up. He does it with literally everyone.
Australia's on fire. New Zealand is tiny. I guess it's up to Canada to save the English-speaking world.
-
The situation here in the United Kingdom is so depressing that I do not even know where to start. All this talk of unity from religious figures and Boris Johnson is pie in the sky. To give you an idea of how divided the UK remains, this evidence (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51268688) is very persuasive.
Nigel Farage exacerbated the divisions with his abhorrent display of nativism and nationalism in the European Parliament on Wednesday, the country is being run by populist xenophobes, and no convincing case has ever been made for Brexit. Economically, the prospects are poor. The UK will be at the behest of Trump if a trade deal with the US is ever going to be considered, let alone signed, while the deal ith the EU will be time-consuming and complicated. The only doubt is not whether the country will be worse off, but by how much it will be worse off.
Also on Wednesday's news, an elderly farmer was telling a BBC reporter how concerned he was about losing his Eastern European workers going forward, yet this very same farmer voted for Brexit. This is the kind of story that is also starting to be repeated by fishermen and the Cornish (who will lose their European funding from the regional structual and cohesion fund), yet the majority of these groups also voted for Brexit. It would be the politics of the absurd, yet it is the reality.
The ultimate irony of all of this is that the so called 'man of the people', Farage, with his offshore bank accounts, will waltz off to the US to help Trump, gloating all the way, while the people who he deceived will be the ones who will lose out the most and become even poorer as a result of Brexit. One day they might realise the mendacity of Farage, Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, and others, but I doubt it.
-
I feel pretty depressed thinking about American politics, I hope that things don't get too bad over in the UK. Maybe you guys can join the EFTA and eventually re-integrate with the EU economy so there isn't a recession and the country doesn't get poorer?
-
EFTA's own website examines this option in detail here (https://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/Frequently-asked-questions-EFTA-EEA-EFTA-membership-and-Brexit-328676). The problem is that the UK is leaving the EEA, which makes an agreement with EFTA countries which are in the EEA more difficult. In addition, the UK government, thus far, has ruled out joining EFTA.
-
Oooph... this is just... crap.
-
With an early start Gibraltar is feeling the pinch as Spain makes trade conditions contingent on the issue being resolved.
-
But Gibraltar has repeatedly voted to remain with the UK, so I don’t know what they hope to accomplish.
-
A trade deal with the EU-UK can exclude Gibraltar so they gain no benefit from it. Unless Spain agrees otherwise which they won't without concessions.
-
I understand that but to poison the entire process even further, or even destroy it altogether, over what is a naked land grab for an area that doesn’t want to know seems like a very foolish thing to do.
-
Welcome to being the small fish in a big pond. The US is already going on about chlorinated chicken and it's only week one.
-
Is chlorinated chicken even a threat? You Americans here, does it bother you?
-
Have you any idea the number of US food recalls? Even beslubbering salad can be a threat. So you'd have no problem accepting US food standards? As they're probably going to get worse sooner than they ever get better.
-
I don’t, no. I’ve never been.
Have Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc, been forced to accept US food standards?
-
They're terrible. Hence why the EU went Oh Hell No a while back. Food labelling is getting worse as well so lies of omission are become more common.
-
Check my post for an edit.
Bare in mind too, all these concerns are why I (eventually) voted remain. Not for love of the EU, but to not rock the boat.
-
I don’t, no. I’ve never been.
Have Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc, been forced to accept US food standards?
For the most part, I think our standards are higher in Canada. I know we (used to) outright refuse milk from the US because they didn't meet our standards. That may have been loosened in recent years, but everything that is made in Canada is branded as such.
-
Have Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc, been forced to accept US food standards?
No. Mainly as in the instance of NZ we're the ones with the food. The US does like to stomp all over people with copyright law though. The UK is desperate and with little time, other countries not so.
-
Gibraltar is an issue that I raised during an academic conference at my university in 2017 when we held an event about Brexit. It has long been a controversial topic, but Spain and UK did come close to achieving shared sovereignty during the Aznar and Blair administrations, but this idea did not come to fruition because the people of Gibraltar refused to back it in a referendum in 2002. The irony is palpable because they voted 99% against shared sovereignty and 96% to remain in the EU. From a trade and employment perspective, they would be much better off being part of Spain right now. This is because that many Gibraltans work across the border in Spain or run businesses which require frictionless trade with Spain to be able to function properly, so Brexit is arguably even more problematic for them than it is for Northern Ireland, which is a point that I made during the aforementioned conference.
The territory was, of course, originally Spanish, so it can be argued that it is not a land grab, but rather an attempt to restore the territory to Spain. The people may not like it, but Spanish governments of both the centre-left and centre-right will always make political capital out of Gibraltar because it is popular with voters. The centre-left tends to be more amenable to compromise, although the shared sovereignty plan was drawn up with Aznar's centre-right government. Spain's ultimate objective though is not really to take Gibraltar back. The government would like to, but this is an unrealistic aim. What Madrid is hoping to achieve is a set of concessions or conditions which will increase Spain's influence and/or running of the territory in some way in the short-term and potentially lead to further control in the long-term.
On the topic of food standards, US food standards are so very poor that the EU has strict conditions on the food that the US is allowed to export into the EU market. I have close friends who live in the US and they regularly comment on the poor quality of the food that is sold relative to the food that they have eaten when visiting EU countries. It is a serious cause for concern and I have signed many petitions on this issue alone.
The UK is in a very weak negotiating position. Time is against this country and Trump is going to really put a lot of pressure on the UK government to accept his demands. This creates a climate for hurried, and by association poor quality, decision and policy making, especially when you consider that the Conservatives have a strong majority, resulting in Parliament being unable to amend of block legislation.
-
So in short, it’s a cluster beslubber. I read as much as I could in the run up to the vote and all this is what eventually swayed me to vote to stay. Though every time Guy Verhofstadt opens his mouth I feel conflicted.
-
So in short, it’s a cluster beslubber.
It is worse than that. These trade deals could end up being incredibly lengthy and leave the UK in limbo for quite some time. Also, ignore all the comments from people arguing that we have left and we are doing okay. The transition period means that very little has changed at this time, so the true impact of leaving is being masked.
Though every time Guy Verhofstadt opens his mouth I feel conflicted.
Why? Unlike a lot of our politicians he has been honest about the problems that the UK is going to face and has actually challenged Farage over his lies far more than some of our politicians and the media have done.
-
The transition period is till the end of the 2020 year? So progress has to be made swiftly. Trade deals that usually take years need to be made within less than one. While in a vulnerable condition. If only someone had warned about this previously...
-
Ironically, one of Norway's biggest labor unions is trying to push Norway to leave the EEC, as they consider the EU to be too right-wing and anti-labor.
Kind of a funny juxtaposition form Farage and his ilk.
-
The transition period is till the end of the 2020 year? So progress has to be made swiftly. Trade deals that usually take years need to be made within less than one. While in a vulnerable condition. If only someone had warned about this previously...
Boris Johnson is adamant that the transition period will only last until the end of this year. I cannot see how any sort of effective trade deal is going to be struck in such a short space of time. It is both disturbing and disconcerting how the Prime Minister continues to dimiss any concerns raised by others and how the leave group labelled anyone who raised these issues during the campaign and before the leaving date as either 'remoaners' or 'doomsters and gloomsters'.
Ironically, one of Norway's biggest labor unions is trying to push Norway to leave the EEC, as they consider the EU to be too right-wing and anti-labor.
Kind of a funny juxtaposition form Farage and his ilk.
I think that you mean the EEA, as Norway's referendum to join the then EEC was held way back in 1972 ;).
On the subject of Norway though, this MP's take (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norwegian-mp-britain-eea-norway-eu-brexiters) on the UK joining EFTA from 2018 is an interesting read. It is made even more so by the fact that she is a Conservative MP.
-
Why? Unlike a lot of our politicians he has been honest about the problems that the UK is going to face and has actually challenged Farage over his lies far more than some of our politicians and the media have done.
It’s not that which bothers me. It’s his public demands for an EU with even more integration, more control to its institutions, with zero opt outs for any country (with presumably no way of legally leaving it either) along with demands for an EU army and talk of ‘empire building’ that bothers me. It’s exactly that kind of talk that helped drive Britain out of the EU in the first place, and it shows a complete lack of self awareness or reflection with I think characterises the EU so much.
He’s entitled to his opinion of course, but I’m sure that he’s just voicing what the EU hierarchy truly believe and will always work towards regardless.
-
The Treaty of Lisbon would have to be changed to remove Article 50. Where have you read that he has said anything about empire building? This is a nationlist concept which is being implicited promoted by the Brexiteers in this country, not European Federalists like Verhofstadt. Also, you cannot guage how voters in different countries respond to different approaches to European integration based on the reactionms of UK voters. Some countries and their electorates are more sceptical about further integration than others. The best way to obtain information about public opinion towards the European Union is to look at Eurobarometer surveys, rather than to rely on media information.
As for the UK being driven out by federalist idea being proposed (not demanded) by one MEP, that's an overly simplistic analysis. The federalists/Europeanists have tried previously to gain the upper hand in the debate about the EU's future, but have regularly ended up adopting a compromise position with the Atlanticists, mainly owing to the fact that Germany wants to maintain positive relations with the United States. If anything, the UK leaving actually strengthens the hand of France, which has traditionally been the strongest Europeanist state (i.e. independence from NATO and a European Army), which further weakens the argument that the UK has left because of increasing federalism.
Finally, the point about opt outs only applies to new member states. Denmark, for example, will continue to retain its opt outs and Ireland has opt outs from certain aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. The UK, by leaving, has lost all its opt-outs and when it attempts to rejoin, it is very unlikely to get them back because the rules would not allow it.
-
Sorry I’m caught up in a thing at the moment. I’ll give you a proper answer asap.
Also to be clear, I’m trying to make my criticism constructive. I don’t think any of us will win out of this. I just think the EU should take a good hard look at what it’s doing wrong and try to learn from it.
-
An alternative is the possibility that the EU did little wrong and instead a group of wealthy dysfunctional semi-adults attempted to climb their way to fame and further fortune while damning the rest of the population to a potential economic recession with no regard to the future consequences. The UK should take the time to look in the mirror as to what they've willingly done to themselves.
-
Also to be clear, I’m trying to make my criticism constructive. I don’t think any of us will win out of this. I just think the EU should take a good hard look at what it’s doing wrong and try to learn from it.
The UK will lose more than the EU is going to lose based on the economic forecasts. The only doubt is the extent to which the UK is going to lose out. This remains an unknown. Given how accommodating the EU has been regarding granting extensions to successive governments over Brexit and in how its negotiators have conducted themselves in a highly professional manner when faced with some of the most fantasist demands ever made by a member state over its future relationship, I would argue that the UK has far more reflection to undertake than the EU does.
The EU has dedicated a lot of time to Brexit, which has also detracted from other very important issues, notably resolving the problems with the Dublin Regulation, the eurozone, and the behaviour of the Hungarian and Polish Governments. One of the few silver linings to the UK's deparature is that it may now be possible for the other member states to address some of these issues and to move forward, but it will be challenging. The EU is far from perfect, but EU leaders and institutions are not saying that it is perfect, rather their position is that many challenges that its member states face are best solved through the EU, rather than by going alone.
It would not have mattered what the EU had done in relation to the UK because there have been far too many individuals with loud voices who are opposed to it no matter what. They are ideologically against its existence and everything that it stands for. Farage, the majority of the press (especially Murdoch's newspapers), an increasing number of wealthy individuals (e.g. Aaron Banks), and much of the Conservative Party have all presented the EU in such a negative light simply because they do not like it. Facts have no place in any of the arguments that they have presented and they have very much adopted the stance of saying whatever they want the truth to be as often as possible to make it seem as though it is true. Even when their lies have been exposed, they have dismissed them in much the same way as Trump has over in the United States. Many other EU countries also have a problem with populism at the moment, but few, if any of the populist far-right or populist far-left in other EU countries are advocating leaving the EU. The UK has to take responsbility for its decision and the inevitable consequences.
-
I think that you mean the EEA, as Norway's referendum to join the then EEC was held way back in 1972 ;).
On the subject of Norway though, this MP's take (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norwegian-mp-britain-eea-norway-eu-brexiters) on the UK joining EFTA from 2018 is an interesting read. It is made even more so by the fact that she is a Conservative MP.
Derp, yeah, we call it the EØS over here and my mind just grabbed the wrong English acronym.
The whole EU question in Norway has always been a landmine no one wants to step on. Ever since '94 , no real discussion on whether we should join or not has been brought up (at least not in a substantial manner). The EEA remains a compromise of sorts, but ever since the economic crises of '7 and onward, some of the more left-leaning parties have openly questioned the membership, citing what they view as EU's lower standards of labor (wage negotiation, employment law, health benefits, contract termination clauses, etc. etc.), and the common market is seen as major mechanism for social dumping.
While I'm quite on the left myself, I honestly have no idea what their alternative is supposed to be. I've heard talks of "the Swiss solution" but that seems like idle waffling for the most part.
Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the thread with these comparatively minor controversies compared to what's going on in the UK and US now. I've just always found the starkly different perspectives on the EU by its British (the Eu is a bureaucratic, leftie, over-regulated hellhole) and Norwegian (the EU is a cynically neoliberal, deregulated anti-worker hellhole) anti-EU movements to be fascinating.
-
Finally, the point about opt outs only applies to new member states. Denmark, for example, will continue to retain its opt outs and Ireland has opt outs from certain aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.
One rule for some, another rule for everyone else.. basically any new country that joins effectively relinquishes a significant portion of their countries sovereignty. The EU as a concept is still a work in progress and could look very different in as little as 10 years from now, kind of an insane thing to do. Your country should always have the option to pull out, especially if the people don't want it any more.
-
You're confusing opt-outs (we don't want these conditions) with pull outs (lets leave).
-
One rule for some, another rule for everyone else..
I would imagine that is how some EU member states' leaders and some EU officials perceived the UK for quite some time ;).
basically any new country that joins effectively relinquishes a significant portion of their countries sovereignty.
The correct term is pooling sovereignty. It is very important to get this right, as otherwise it is misleading and makes it sound as though a state has been conquered in some form of armed conflict, which is inherently not the case. By joining the EU, any member state knows which areas require sovereignty to be shared, so I do not see what the issue is. Some countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, decided that this was not for them, most European countries have either joined or want to join.
The EU as a concept is still a work in progress and could look very different in as little as 10 years from now, kind of an insane thing to do. Your country should always have the option to pull out, especially if the people don't want it any more.
The EU is not a concept. In addition, most changes of the sort of magnitude that you are implying would require a change to the Treaty of Lisbon or a new Treaty. I am unconvinced that this will happen within the next ten years, as there is little appetite for such change at the moment. In addition, Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon, so it could not be easily removed. As Rummy said though, and I agree with him, I think that you are confusing two separate points here.
-
You're confusing opt-outs (we don't want these conditions) with pull outs (lets leave).
Just to raise a quick point, Guy Verhofstadt wants all opt-outs as well as rebates, vetos and qualified majority voting phased out asap. Basically even less power for individual states, as his solution for saving the EU.
Good luck with that.
-
The key word there is 'wants'. Wanting something and obtaining something are far from the same thing when it comes to EU politics. You keep envisaging the EU as a zero sum game, which is not how it works at all. It operates on the basis of compromise and consensus and cannot be compared to the majoritarian UK Parliament in any way.
EU states have agreed to pool their sovereignty across an increasingly wide range of policy areas. It is not as though this has happened against their will. If anyone has an issue with that they need to take it up with their national government, not with the EU institutions or MEPs.
Could you please link me to the speech or policy paper where Guy Verhofstadt has been outlining these positions by the way?
-
Sure. The speech calling for an end to rebates and opt outs can be found on his Twitter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281 (https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281)
And here’s where he says that the current world order is one of empires (hinting that the EU should think in the same way):
Watch: Guy Verhofstadt on the world’s ?empires? | Coffee House (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/watch-guy-verhofstadt-on-the-worlds-empires/)
I read the speech in full elsewhere, which I’ll try to find for you.
I also remember another one were he spoke of the EU needing to learn the ‘language of power’. As in power projection...as in military might. I’ll try to find that one too.
For the record, I actually do understand, even sympathise, were he’s coming from. I just think that he’s going about it in a wrong and heavy handed manner.
-
Sure. The speech calling for an end to rebates and opt outs can be found on his Twitter:
http://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281 (http://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281)
There is nothing new or controversial there. He has held that position for decades. Some will agree, some will not, but ultimately, he is a single MEP at the head of one of the smaller party blocs in the European Parliament. The vision of an integrated EU to the extent which he outlines has been proposed before and was envisaged by some of the architects of the original ECSC and EEC, but it has not happened because national governments have not wanted to integrate to that extent across all policy areas.
And here’s where he says that the current world order is one of empires (hinting that the EU should think in the same way):
Watch: Guy Verhofstadt on the world’s ?empires? | Coffee House (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/watch-guy-verhofstadt-on-the-worlds-empires/)
I do not think that he is hinting that the EU should become an empire. He is arguing that to resist being dominated by other 'empires'. The UK needed to remain in the EU. In view of how weak the UK's negotiating position is in terms of resisting less than favourable terms with the United States or China to establish a quick trade deal, he is making a very valid point.
The Spectator is owned by the Barclays, who also own the Daily Telegraph, so it is no surprise that the piece being written there is attempting to portrary Verhofstadt's argument negatively. In addition, I am appalled by the use of language and comparisons with dictatorship by the ill-informed replies on Twitter. Social media really has reduced the quality of debate and discourse. People are free to disagree with his vision of the EU, indeed many other MEPs and leaders of EU countries who are pro-EU do disagree with him about the extent of integration which he favours, but there is no need to resort to all this name-calling and inappropriate and incorrect comparisons. It's amazing how 'brave' people are hiding behind the social media wall.
-
That we’re definitely agreed upon. Social media is generally an unflushed toilet. :P