Witzkatz wrote: Are you guys keeping Germany with its major North Sea ports of Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven and so on out of your North Sea Economic Area on purpose?
Witzkatz wrote: Are you guys keeping Germany with its major North Sea ports of Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven and so on out of your North Sea Economic Area on purpose?
Nobody should let their vote, be it in or out, be decided on the basis of what might happen in another country after the referendum.
My number 1 concern is the future of this island.
What about indirect impacts on our island? If we allow Eastern Europe to destabilize (because Putin clearly wants it back), what's the fall-out going to be? How long before we have all of those refugees to house as well as the current flood? What if we get dragged into it?
What might happen in other countries will affect the future of this island.
Even with BREXIT, Britain will still be in NATO. Putin's not daft enough to take on NATO - nobody wins. Eastern Europe will be fine.*
Hopefully, they won't be famous last words
but the point remains. I'm not worried about Russian sabre rattling. If anything, I'd be more worried if they went quiet.
Channel 4 has confirmed its line-up of the final televised EU referendum debate on Wednesday night with an audience of 150 public figures split between remain, leave and those still undecided.
Former Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman will host the 90-minute broadcast featuring revolving panels on topics such as the economy, immigration, and security chosen from the audience made up of “well-known and passionate guests”.
Those representing remain include MPs Alex Salmond and Yvette Cooper, presenter June Sarpong, musician Rick Astley and celebrity chef Delia Smith.
Those in the leave part of the audience will include Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, former Tory MPs Louise Mensch and Ann Widdecombe, presenter Ulrika Jonsson and columnist and author Toby Young.
One can only assume we are all suffering from some evil curse or something.
Yes, yes it is. The "confronting reality with utopias" can be read two ways, he's either arguing, as you claim, that the EU needs to remain true to its goals and push on, or he's arguing that the "we" in the speech are the ones responsible for having pushed these ideals of utopia despite reality, and that they might have to stop and take notice of context in order to do better. Sure, he's not arguing for the abandoning of the goal of European unity, you're right on that point, but he is (at least I'd argue he is) calling for a pause to review and reflect over the way things have been done so far.
I think you're right - he realized it was moving too fast, the plan got noticed, and as soon as we drop our guard he'll be back at it.
I don't know what to think of the house of lords. I like the idea that theres some stopping points if parliamentary legislation gets out of hand, but looking back through the motions which were blocked by the house of lords there are a few things which i disagree with.
Turns out that it lost out to the EEC, which back then was pretty much the same thing but on a larger scale. But of course since then the EEC has mutated into the EU and well, here we are.
In the event of Brexit, this should be revived as the North Sea Economic Area.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
It would be an economic trade zone, not a political union.
And who would be setting the agenda for such a Free Trade Zone? It sure as hell isn't going to be Norway or Finland.
The agenda would simply be, no tariffs on each other's goods, possible visa free travel (travel, not work or residence) and coming together when dealing with outside nations. So if the EU comes after Norways oil for example we can stand in solidarity with them.
But we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Several countries would need to get out of the EU first to do it.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
It would be an economic trade zone, not a political union.
And who would be setting the agenda for such a Free Trade Zone? It sure as hell isn't going to be Norway or Finland.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
It would be an economic trade zone, not a political union.
And who would be setting the agenda for such a Free Trade Zone? It sure as hell isn't going to be Norway or Finland.
Why are you so sure there would be an agenda?
Because Britain would be as big as everyone else in the bloc together. It'd become "Great Britain and friends", because when one member has so much more power than everyone else that member is going to be calling the shots. Considering how worried you are about your own sovereignty, I'm surprised this is controversial to you.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
It would be an economic trade zone, not a political union.
And who would be setting the agenda for such a Free Trade Zone? It sure as hell isn't going to be Norway or Finland.
Why are you so sure there would be an agenda?
Because Britain would be as big as everyone else in the bloc together. It'd become "Great Britain and friends", because when one member has so much more power than everyone else that member is going to be calling the shots. Considering how worried you are about your own sovereignty, I'm surprised this is controversial to you.
No, I don't accept your premise - that anybody would be calling the shots. We're not advocating a European Union Mark 2 with intrusive regulations and laws that member states must follow and supra national organisations with the powers to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states, all of which is dominated by and therefore biased to the largest member state (I.e. Germany / UK)...we're literally just advocating a free trade zone with no tarrifs etc. There'll be no body calling the shots because there'll be nothing to call the shots over.
British steel taking a beating. ATMEU membership is providing them with a bit of a cushion against cheap Chinese steel. After BREXIT England will be slightly more limited as far as how it can protect it's industries via tariffs.
Scotland moving to exit the UK in favor of the EU. No, seriously. A lot of the reasons the Leave campaign has been waiving about also would apply to Scotland leaving the UK. Talk about free advertising.
Increased tariffs on goods going to the EU. I predict that England will find it much more difficult to get a good deal than they seem to think, given tightening belts in Europe, and the stigma that will stick to the UK on the continent after BREXIT.
The lack of legal means by which England can seek extradition of criminals who escape the UK to the Continent will lead to a good deal of public frustration as England's criminals escape justice. ATM the UK depends on it's EU membership as it's prime means to work closely with EU member police. Many of it''s previous extradition treaties have been allowed to lapse or be annulled, as they were unneeded. It could be Bloody Jack all over again, and there's not a damn thing that could be done as long as he makes it to France.
In the flip side, Englishmen can go back to committing all the crimes in France they like, there won't be any extradition heading in the other direction, either.
Extradition treaties don't completely break down if we leave the EU, we have treaties with countries all around the world. We're still in Interpol, criminals would have to run to South America still to hide.
And the steel industry was killed by the UK government. Three decades of british governments have dismantled it piece by piece, the latest closures and job losses are actually in part because our government opposed the EU tariffs in cheap chinese steel flooding the market. They would rather international corporations operating in the UK used cheap foreign steel than be encouraged to use products of our own national industries. The current government's policies cut the throat of the steel industry.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Extradition treaties don't completely break down if we leave the EU, we have treaties with countries all around the world. We're still in Interpol, criminals would have to run to South America still to hide.
And the steel industry was killed by the UK government. Three decades of british governments have dismantled it piece by piece, the latest closures and job losses are actually in part because our government opposed the EU tariffs in cheap chinese steel flooding the market. They would rather international corporations operating in the UK used cheap foreign steel than be encouraged to use products of our own national industries. The current government's policies cut the throat of the steel industry.
that is all pretty much true. China is dumping steel, France and Germany have managed to control it more than the UK last time I looked.
I don't think I've ever seen the Brexiteers describe what economy they'd want, post EU. For the public record, there are two Brexit economists - both fairly well-respected.
One is Patrick Minford of Cardiff Business School.
The second is Andrew Lilico, who is Chairman of the IEA/Sunday Times Monetary Policy Committee.
They have two very different visions.
Minford would cut immigration. He thinks prices will go down. But he sees the end of all manufacturing in the UK. He thinks this is a price worth paying.
Lillico says there will be a symbolic cut in immigration, for one or two years. Then back to pretty much open borders. He thinks manufacturing will continue.
Both somewhat belittle the other's theories which are, in truth, incompatible with each other.
Below are Munford and Lilico's visions. I offer them because, given the paucity of information offered by the Brexit campaigners for how a post-EU economy would work, these are the most rational visions. So with one alternative, there's no manufacturing. With the other, immigration is just a totem and there will be minimal difference.
They've' both been interviewed on the BBC's excellent More or Less: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player Minford:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/…/brexit-will-boost-our-economy-a…/ Lilico:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Britains-work-in-the-EU-is-don…
The UK is currently part of the EU wide Common Arrest Warrant Framework. This enables any EU member to issue arrest warrants that have the practical effect of extradition without the diplomatic procedures.
On leaving the EU we would also leave this as it's part of the overall structure. We would still be part of Interpol and the European Court for Human Rights. These do not carry out extradition functions, though.
We therefore would have to re-establish treaties with all the EU countries, and go down the normal diplomatic route whenever we wanted to make an extradition. Alternatively, we could simply apply to rejoin the Common Arrest Warrant Framework.
This obviously would make a nonsense of leaving the EU, but that is true for a number of different points of international relations which is part of the weakness of the Leave case.
No, I don't accept your premise - that anybody would be calling the shots. We're not advocating a European Union Mark 2 with intrusive regulations and laws that member states must follow and supra national organisations with the powers to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states, all of which is dominated by and therefore biased to the largest member state (I.e. Germany / UK)...we're literally just advocating a free trade zone with no tarrifs etc. There'll be no body calling the shots because there'll be nothing to call the shots over..
I get that you think in an ideal world, no-one would be calling the shots, but particularly with the clause about mutual support in Europe, you'd have countries interacting in ways that aren't initially expected and some sort of shot calling will be happeing. If there's no agenda/common statement then there's nothing to control that..
You'd be relying on everyone agreeing unanimously to all suggestions, but if there's ever a difference of opinion how is it going to be resolved? The bigger countries threatening to leave?
In a captivating interview with Iain Dale, Chancellor George Osborne admitted that there is "no plan" in place if Britain votes to leave the European Union.
You can hear the full interview above - including Osborne's tribute to Jo Cox and his claim that if Britain votes out on Thursday, the economic hit would begin on Friday.
"It wouldn't just be when we left in two years time that the economic hit would come," said Osborne. "It would start to come this coming Friday.
"That's when the uncertainty would start."
"I see a country that would be permanently poorer because we would not be trading as much with our European neighbours as we do today."
Asked by Iain if there would be redundancy notices on Friday, Osborne said: "That will start to happen very quickly, sadly."
"I have to tell you that you cannot protect people from the economic shock that leaving the EU would bring about."
"Presumably you have been planning for a Leave vote because the polls are so close," said Iain.
After admitting there were contingency plans for the immediate aftermath of a Leave vote, Osborne added: "We have not got plans for what you then do."
"Really?" asked Iain. "I'm astonished. The polls are neck and neck, surely a responsible government would be planning for what would happen."
Osborne said: "No we haven't...we're arguing the country should remain."
Iain continued to put the Chancellor on the spot about the lack of plans, forcing Osborne to admit: "Britain does not have a plan for Brexit.
"And do you know what? It would take years and years...I could come on this show in ten years and we'd still be talking about how we re-establish a trade deal with France and Germany.
If you hate the Tories vote to leave, the party will have destroyed itself by the end of the year.
Labour Leave already have it covered
Spoiler:
Though, I will say again, don't vote Remain or Leave because of a dislike of our current government or personalities. They'll be gone in a few years, the EU is ever present.
If you hate the Tories vote to leave, the party will have destroyed itself by the end of the year.
yes, it will be led by Gove and Johnson, Priti Patel will remove all workers' rights, they will have performed a right-wing coup and we will be the far-right elite's slaves.
Permanently leaving a Union that (albeit imperfectly) protects workers' rights, in order to get rid of the present government, is insanity - which is why all the main unions are part of Leave. And that's why "Labour Leave" is funded by Tory donors.
Honestly, should Leave prevail, I think we'd be having a general election within 12 months. Someone will call a no confidence vote and I reckon there'd be enough Conservative rebels to tip it over. Even more so if the two lame ducks refuse to budge.
In a captivating interview with Iain Dale, Chancellor George Osborne admitted that there is "no plan" in place if Britain votes to leave the European Union.
...
...
Iain continued to put the Chancellor on the spot about the lack of plans, forcing Osborne to admit: "Britain does not have a plan for Brexit.
"And do you know what? It would take years and years...I could come on this show in ten years and we'd still be talking about how we re-establish a trade deal with France and Germany.
"It's not for me to come up with [Leave's] plan."
Oh well, that's fine then.
To be fair to Osborne (and Cameron) much though I dislike and distrust both of them, official government policy is not to leave the EU, and it doesn't happen on Friday afternoon.
If there is a referendum vote to leave, it does not bind parliament. The government would have to consider what to do. It could simply disregard the vote, especially if it is very close, and wait to be punished at the polls in 2020.
I think most likely the government would start work on a bill to initiate the process of unwinding the key EU treaties. This would need to go through parliament with no certainty that it would pass, if it failed, IDK what would happen, perhaps the government would resign and call a general election. Once the election was settled (and the EU would be a factor in the campaign) the situation might be that the people had changed their mind and didn't want to leave after all.
At the same time as developing this bill, the government would need to be working on unwinding all the various commitments to the EU and developing replacements for them. For example, the EU Arrest Warrant System I mentioned earlier would need to be replaced. Obviously there would need to be new trade treaties with the EU and these would need to cover all the standards and so on so that we would be in compliance with EU law. A lot of this would trigger changes to domestic policy legislation, such as s new agricultural policy to replace EU grants. And so on and on.
Clearly all of this is a metric fuckton (0.98 Imperial fucktons) of expensive work. It would be stupid to start it when there is no certainty it will be needed. It is very unlikely all this could be achieved in the nominal two years that leaving the EU is supposed to take.
At this stage a well prepared foreign office should have a list of all the work that would need to be done, and that's all.
OTOH as Osborne says, the economic impact of a vote to leave will start on Friday morning. We have already seen significant volatility in the foreign exchange markets in the past couple of weeks, the GBP weakening as the Leave campaign gained ground, then strengthening again as the Remain campaign resurged over the weekend.
No, I don't accept your premise - that anybody would be calling the shots. We're not advocating a European Union Mark 2 with intrusive regulations and laws that member states must follow and supra national organisations with the powers to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states, all of which is dominated by and therefore biased to the largest member state (I.e. Germany / UK)...we're literally just advocating a free trade zone with no tarrifs etc. There'll be no body calling the shots because there'll be nothing to call the shots over..
I get that you think in an ideal world, no-one would be calling the shots, but particularly with the clause about mutual support in Europe, you'd have countries interacting in ways that aren't initially expected and some sort of shot calling will be happeing. If there's no agenda/common statement then there's nothing to control that..
You'd be relying on everyone agreeing unanimously to all suggestions, but if there's ever a difference of opinion how is it going to be resolved? The bigger countries threatening to leave?
This. It is beyond naïve to think that a free-trade zone where one member dwarfs everyone else wouldn't become a political tool for that member. All the Scandinavian countries, for example, are rather left of the UK politically; in Sweden the unions have power that would make Mrs. Thatcher rotate in her grave. Sooner or later there's going to be a conflict between free trade and the power of the unions.
You're also assuming that these other countries would want to throw away the biggest trade bloc in the world in favour of the UK. Why would that be the case?
If you hate the Tories vote to leave, the party will have destroyed itself by the end of the year.
As much asI hate the tories, that's a terrible idea. The tories will tear themselvs apart anyway, but whilst labour continues to have no directin theres no real alternative. We should be voting based on the bigger picture and the future and whatever happens we'll have crap, innefective, corrupt self serving politicians.
The Conservative Party is more likely to blow up if the vote is to remain. Euroscepticis has been a rumbling cancer in the part since the 1980s, and it won't go away if the vote is to remain.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think there is any suggestion of ballot stuffing or something like that? It seems unlikely.
It does seem unlikely, but that voter extension debacle will likely escalate things if the vote is close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: I'll give you evens that places will run out of ballot papers/close while people are waiting etc etc.
No excuse for it, because they have a historical example of a recent referendum from two years ago, and all the lessons that were learned from that.
Turnout is likely to be very high, so I don't want to hear any bullgak from the electoral commission about polling stations being undermanned or not enough ballot papers being available.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a nonsense, though. How can either side say the people who registered later were more likely to support X or Y? It's impossible to know.
Instead everyone should be glad that more people were able to get a vote.
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad more people are voting, but there is zero excuse for the shambles that happened, because they had a template from the Scottish referendum that they could have followed in order to avoid what happened.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I'm being honest, I am slightly concerned about Friday morning, because the polls are so close.
If it's 51/49 for either side, the courts will probably be involved, and that's bad for democracy...
And it raises another interesting point. The split appears to be very close to 50/50. So, if Leave win, how are they (Gov) going to accommodate the wishes of those who voted remain? How will they be "listened to". Consequently, should Remain win, how will those who voted Leave be "listened to"? How will the country be reconciled around the final choice? Unless a clear result is shown for either side, I doubt this debate is far from over.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a nonsense, though. How can either side say the people who registered later were more likely to support X or Y? It's impossible to know.
Instead everyone should be glad that more people were able to get a vote.
There was apparently an age skew to the later registrations. The Leave camp say this is therefore unfair as it will favour Remain (the statistics are unequivocal).
As I mentioned to the Leave fella who was campaigning in my street yesterday (when campaigning was officially suspended for obvious reasons), he shouldn't be allowed to vote, he'll be dead soon but my kids will need jobs.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I'm being honest, I am slightly concerned about Friday morning, because the polls are so close.
If it's 51/49 for either side, the courts will probably be involved, and that's bad for democracy...
And it raises another interesting point. The split appears to be very close to 50/50. So, if Leave win, how are they (Gov) going to accommodate the wishes of those who voted remain? How will they be "listened to". Consequently, should Remain win, how will those who voted Leave be "listened to"? How will the country be reconciled around the final choice? Unless a clear result is shown for either side, I doubt this debate is far from over.
If, and it's a big if, the winning margin is say, 200,000 votes or something, I'm expecting a force 11 gak storm to hit the UK
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I'm being honest, I am slightly concerned about Friday morning, because the polls are so close.
If it's 51/49 for either side, the courts will probably be involved, and that's bad for democracy...
And it raises another interesting point. The split appears to be very close to 50/50. So, if Leave win, how are they (Gov) going to accommodate the wishes of those who voted remain? How will they be "listened to". Consequently, should Remain win, how will those who voted Leave be "listened to"? How will the country be reconciled around the final choice? Unless a clear result is shown for either side, I doubt this debate is far from over.
You're absolutely right, and it's another reason why the referendum was a stupid idea at the start.
If it is a close as it looks. I wonder if there will be another treaty change offered and a new referendum held later based on the new deal as the EU now realises it's really happening.
I get the feeling that the rest of Europe didn't really think there was a danger of the UK leaving.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I'm being honest, I am slightly concerned about Friday morning, because the polls are so close.
If it's 51/49 for either side, the courts will probably be involved, and that's bad for democracy...
And it raises another interesting point. The split appears to be very close to 50/50. So, if Leave win, how are they (Gov) going to accommodate the wishes of those who voted remain? How will they be "listened to". Consequently, should Remain win, how will those who voted Leave be "listened to"? How will the country be reconciled around the final choice? Unless a clear result is shown for either side, I doubt this debate is far from over.
You're absolutely right, and it's another reason why the referendum was a stupid idea at the start.
I disagree. It's been 40+ years since the EEC referendum, and in that time we had Maastricht, Lisbon, and a whole bunch of other EU measures. I think it was the right thing to do.
A lot of the problems are down to Cameron's ineptitude and inability to handle his own party, but the average man in the street shouldn't carry the can for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
obsidianaura wrote: If it is a close as it looks. I wonder if there will be another treaty change offered and a new referendum held later based on the new deal as the EU now realises it's really happening.
I get the feeling that the rest of Europe didn't really think there was a danger of the UK leaving.
You can bet your last penny that if it's a close BREXIT vote, the EU top brass will be all over Britain like a bad rash as they rush to offer a new deal.
Expect them also to make sympathetic noises about Scotland being welcomed into the EU by a unique fast track programme, that was always in the rules, but was 'accidently' forgotten about.
It's hard to know what everyone else in Europe thinks. Support for the EU is low in a lot of core countries even including France, but like me, a lot of people like the general idea of the EU while disagreeing with some of the details.
The best result IMO would be a close win for Remain that gives the EU enough of a shock to make them listen to complaining voices.
It's easier to reform the organisation from within than by leaving. I don't think tinkering with treaty details for individual countries is the right way forwards. There would need to be a clearer idea of what needs to be reformed, based on wider spread discontent than just the UK.
I don't think Cameron is the man to go in to bat for Britain against the EU top level, but a narrow Remain result might make it possible for him to get a coalition of politicians and diplomats from other countries. Someone from Denmark may turn out to be the best advocate.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's hard to know what everyone else in Europe thinks. Support for the EU is low in a lot of core countries even including France, but like me, a lot of people like the general idea of the EU while disagreeing with some of the details.
The best result IMO would be a close win for Remain that gives the EU enough of a shock to make them listen to complaining voices.
It's easier to reform the organisation from within than by leaving. I don't think tinkering with treaty details for individual countries is the right way forwards. There would need to be a clearer idea of what needs to be reformed, based on wider spread discontent than just the UK.
I don't think Cameron is the man to go in to bat for Britain against the EU top level, but a narrow Remain result might make it possible for him to get a coalition of politicians and diplomats from other countries. Someone from Denmark may turn out to be the best advocate.
I'm hoping for the same.
Either way the EU needs to do something. Not compromising on things to help countries within it cope, is not going to sooth the discontent.
This is why there needs to be a sensible accounting of complaints, rather than generalised moaning and grumbling about "red tape", "immigration", "sovereignty" and so on.
The government and EU need to actually specify and quantify what people are worried about.
If you hate the Tories vote to leave, the party will have destroyed itself by the end of the year.
As much asI hate the tories, that's a terrible idea. The tories will tear themselvs apart anyway, but whilst labour continues to have no directin theres no real alternative. We should be voting based on the bigger picture and the future and whatever happens we'll have crap, innefective, corrupt self serving politicians.
I know, I was joking. Only partially because no doubt people are only voting based on political parties.
It's a bit like AVP, no matter which side wins, both will lose.
But if leave wins and the government tells us no, there will be riots.
I've seen some sincere people make sound argument for Brexit. But I'm dumbfounded you think Boris is one of the better ones.
Behind that cheery exterior is one of the most ambitious, unprincipled characters in politics. He's an entirely different beast, even to Cameron and Osborne.
1: he lies on the record. He was sacked for making up stories in the Times, and sacked by Michael Howard for denying he was having an affair. Think about that - he became a politician because he was too dishonest to be a journalist!
2: He's no Tory. He called for the suspension of Habeas Corpus - which is exactly what people talk about when they extol the Magna Carta and ancient English liberties. He didn't do it out of principle, but to try and court more popularity.
3: Before the Olympics, London had to reduce atmospheric pollution, both for EU regs and because it had been agreed. The Chinese did it by reducing emissions - cleaning up factories. Boris did it by spraying suppressant around the monitoring sites. As in, not reducing the pollution at all but by fiddling the readings. Remember, 10,000 Londoners die early every single year thanks to NO and other pollutants.
It's fashionable to decry politicians, but some of them are honourable. I suggest he's one of the least honourable there is.
it's especially relevant to this debate, in that he's not a Brexit man; he's doing it solely to try and get the top job. At least Gove does, and always has, believe in his cause (can't believe I just said that). It's a masterclass in political cynicism, in a business famous for it.
I've seen some sincere people make sound argument for Brexit. But I'm dumbfounded you think Boris is one of the better ones.
Behind that cheery exterior is one of the most ambitious, unprincipled characters in politics. He's an entirely different beast, even to Cameron and Osborne.
1: he lies on the record. He was sacked for making up stories in the Times, and sacked by Michael Howard for denying he was having an affair. Think about that - he became a politician because he was too dishonest to be a journalist!
2: He's no Tory. He called for the suspension of Habeas Corpus - which is exactly what people talk about when they extol the Magna Carta and ancient English liberties. He didn't do it out of principle, but to try and court more popularity.
3: Before the Olympics, London had to reduce atmospheric pollution, both for EU regs and because it had been agreed. The Chinese did it by reducing emissions - cleaning up factories. Boris did it by spraying suppressant around the monitoring sites. As in, not reducing the pollution at all but by fiddling the readings. Remember, 10,000 Londoners die early every single year thanks to NO and other pollutants.
It's fashionable to decry politicians, but some of them are honourable. I suggest he's one of the least honourable there is.
it's especially relevant to this debate, in that he's not a Brexit man; he's doing it solely to try and get the top job. At least Gove does, and always has, believe in his cause (can't believe I just said that). It's a masterclass in political cynicism, in a business famous for it.
Completely agree with this 100%
Now, I'm voting leave, I think that's been pretty well established by now
But I would say this to my fellow dakka members.
1) Get out there and vote on Thursday. The more the better, regardless if you're IN or OUT.
2) Put party politics aside and think of the national interest. Forget personalities. Don't vote remain because you don't want Bojo as PM. And don't vote to leave because you want to see David Cameron booted out of Downing street.
Think of the bigger picture, and that bigger picture is either Britain part of the EU, or Britain making its own way in the world.
Two bit politicians like Bojo, Call me Dave, Blair, Farage, Corbyn, Osborne etc etc don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a nonsense, though. How can either side say the people who registered later were more likely to support X or Y? It's impossible to know.
Instead everyone should be glad that more people were able to get a vote.
There was apparently an age skew to the later registrations. The Leave camp say this is therefore unfair as it will favour Remain (the statistics are unequivocal).
As I mentioned to the Leave fella who was campaigning in my street yesterday (when campaigning was officially suspended for obvious reasons), he shouldn't be allowed to vote, he'll be dead soon but my kids will need jobs.
Curious that it's the young voters that are expected to vote leave - they've got a much bigger stake in this as they are the ones that will have to live with the decision whilst a lot of older voters (being retired or nearly retired) are likely to be pretty insulated from whatever happens, whilst also likely to be the most xenophobic.
Curious that it's the young voters that are expected to vote leave - they've got a much bigger stake in this as they are the ones that will have to live with the decision whilst a lot of older voters (being retired or nearly retired) are likely to be pretty insulated from whatever happens, whilst also likely to be the most xenophobic.
My bad for not being explicit.
The statistics are something like, 65 per cent of under 29s favour Remain, and about the same proportion of over 59s favour Leave.
the proportions are roughly the same for those with degree (40% remain majority), and GCSE or less (40% Leave majority)
Can't stand Johnson. He's a self serving spanker who waited to see which way the wind was blowing and then picked a side when he sensed an opportunity to usurp Cameron as PM. I expect he's gambling that a LEAVE vote will topple Cameron, and then he'll make his move for the leadership.
My parents just can't understand that, they assumed that because I support LEAVE I must therefore like Johnson. Apparently they like him because he's "funny" or something.
And don't vote to leave because you want to see David Cameron booted out of Downing street.
I made my decision 10 years ago, but Cameron getting the boot would be a welcome bonus.
If you hate the Tories vote to leave, the party will have destroyed itself by the end of the year.
As much asI hate the tories, that's a terrible idea. The tories will tear themselvs apart anyway, but whilst labour continues to have no directin theres no real alternative. We should be voting based on the bigger picture and the future and whatever happens we'll have crap, innefective, corrupt self serving politicians.
I know, I was joking. Only partially because no doubt people are only voting based on political parties.
It's a bit like AVP, no matter which side wins, both will lose.
But if leave wins and the government tells us no, there will be riots.
I didn't think you were being serious, but I've heard of some pretty daft reasons for voting either way, though nothing as much as the notion that people will base it on the performance of the England football team in the Euros.
Curious that it's the young voters that are expected to vote leave - they've got a much bigger stake in this as they are the ones that will have to live with the decision whilst a lot of older voters (being retired or nearly retired) are likely to be pretty insulated from whatever happens, whilst also likely to be the most xenophobic.
My bad for not being explicit.
The statistics are something like, 65 per cent of under 29s favour Remain, and about the same proportion of over 59s favour Leave.
No problem
So those with most to lose favour staying in, those with least to lose favour leaving?
Herzlos wrote: whilst a lot of older voters (being retired or nearly retired) are likely to be pretty insulated from whatever happens
Not if the Government's prophecies of doom regarding pensions are to be believed.
Nothing bad will happen to pensions. The government will just pull money away from other things like university funding, or education in general in order to keep those retired people happy and voting for them.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Can't stand Johnson. He's a self serving spanker who waited to see which way the wind was blowing and then picked a side when he sensed an opportunity to usurp Cameron as PM. I expect he's gambling that a LEAVE vote will topple Cameron, and then he'll make his move for the leadership.
My parents just can't understand that, they assumed that because I support LEAVE I must therefore like Johnson. Apparently they like him because he's "funny" or something.
And don't vote to leave because you want to see David Cameron booted out of Downing street.
I made my decision 10 years ago, but Cameron getting the boot would be a welcome bonus.
Boris Johnson is one of the many people that as I've gotten older have gone from "The funny X guy! I like him he does daft stuff!" to actually being genuinely concerning. He gives off the air of being a bit silly, like some sort of bumbling lovable uncle, but after some deeper research almost everything he does seems to come across as incredibly self-serving and in many cases dishonest.
People also in this group include: Rick Santorum (his surname is slang which is funny, his policies are disgusting), Chuck Norris (hurr hurr memes, but actively works against LGBT rights), Putin (he rides horses and goes shirtless! but is also Putin), Jeremy Clarkson (He makes rude jokes! He's an overgrown child who throws about racism as if it's confetti) and Nadine Dorries (she's an MP who went on I'm a Celebrity Get me out of here! That's Hilarious! She's my local MP and opposes almost everything that I stand for)
Goliath wrote: Nadine Dorries (she's an MP who went on I'm a Celebrity Get me out of here! That's Hilarious! She's my local MP and opposes almost everything that I stand for)
I think at times people really underestimate exactly how confident -- even if it's often without exactly great reasons -- Cameron is.
Not really. If you see him destroying your own preferred party leader at Question Time with consummate ease, totally unruffled, you have to give him credit for confidence, at least.
Calling the referendum was pretty disastrous though, given it was simply to placate extremists like John Redwood ("the bastards", as Major put it), he's divided the country, might well still lose and be responsible for torpedoing our economy, and our future, and as we know there have been tragic events that might not have happened without all the hate that's been unleashed.
I want to be a good sport I really do, but if Leave win there's a place on the web that I will be returning to to mock them over it, because of the hateful way they treated me for having a different opinion. I've had disagreements here but so far nobody has sent me a pm saying that I deserve cancer for wanting to leave the EU.
Honestly, regardless of the result, Friday's weather report will likely include a huge band of Smug settling across the UK; as the louder supporters of the winning side seek to become the official dictionary definition of 'insufferable'.
I think given the polls we've seen so far -- and bearing in mind the leave/remain does cross over party/political allegiances, there really wasn't much of a choice but to call a referendum on the matter.
There's no way any of the existing parties -- possible exception of the Libs and UKIP ... and look how they did at the last election -- could clearly come down as in or out without splintering.
The debate/argument has been a long time coming and is -- IMO, YMMV -- due "lancing".
Even without the timelines put forwards for x/y/z to take hold one suspects that this isn't quite the end of the saga here anyway.
Any significant shift one way or another by the Uk or the EU -- or of course other global events -- is still quite likely to cause further ructions in the future.
For example I know of people who will be voting remain but would still oppose any attempt for us to take.. join ..?? ... the Euro as our currency.
For example I know of people who will be voting remain but would still oppose any attempt for us to take.. join ..?? ... the Euro as our currency.
That seems an entirely reasonable position. the UK has secured an opt out against the Euro, and against further integration, and there might be a point at which other nations should get the same. Obviously the problem is that, if you already have the Euro, perhaps further integration is obligatory.
Not that I buy the argument that the present problems are all the Euro's fault.. the prime cause is the banking crisis and insane lending.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to be a good sport I really do, but if Leave win there's a place on the web that I will be returning to to mock them over it, because of the hateful way they treated me for having a different opinion. I've had disagreements here but so far nobody has sent me a pm saying that I deserve cancer for wanting to leave the EU.
Was that on Dakka? Sad. I've had plenty of Facebook abuse, mostly from people who represent a collective damning indictment of the British (or more specifically Yorkshire) education system.
Any "opt-outs" that we have aren't worth the paper they're written on. At best, the EU views our opt-outs as temporary. After all, how many "Red-lines" did Tony Blair concede over the years?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Any "opt-outs" that we have aren't worth the paper they're written on. At best, the EU views our opt-outs as temporary. After all, how many "Red-lines" did Tony Blair concede over the years?
I trust a legally-binding treaty over internet assertions, sorry!
In any case we would certainly Leave rather than join the Euro.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Any "opt-outs" that we have aren't worth the paper they're written on. At best, the EU views our opt-outs as temporary. After all, how many "Red-lines" did Tony Blair concede over the years?
I trust a legally-binding treaty over internet assertions, sorry!
In any case we would certainly Leave rather than join the Euro.
I hope you're not referring to the "promises of reform" that David Cameron was parading after returning from his negotiating tour.
Not that I buy the argument that the present problems are all the Euro's fault.. the prime cause is the banking crisis and insane lending.
To go off at a slight tangent the EU and European national governments were at fault when the crisis hit Europe. The EU in particular is guilty of going against its regulations in allowing Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal to have government debt to go above 60% of GDP.
They also okayed the bailouts which were, again, against principles laid down by Finance ministers within the EU.
The EU could never allow Greece to leave the Euro currency ( you guessed it, its against the EU's rules) so was left propping up a country which they allowed to run up massive amounts of debt, contra to policy in order to ensure the Euro was a stable currency.
If Italy's banking sector cannot deal with the debt their government has (137% of GDP and rising) this will be another country that needs a bailout.
The Euro is a bigger risk to European stability than a Brexit IMO.
Not that I buy the argument that the present problems are all the Euro's fault.. the prime cause is the banking crisis and insane lending.
To go off at a slight tangent the EU and European national governments were at fault when the crisis hit Europe. The EU in particular is guilty of going against its regulations in allowing Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal to have government debt to go above 60% of GDP.
They also okayed the bailouts which were, again, against principles laid down by Finance ministers within the EU.
The EU could never allow Greece to leave the Euro currency ...
The Euro is a bigger risk to European stability than a Brexit IMO.
Oh yes, agreed. Hubris. But we are where we are now and fortunately somewhat insulated.
I hope you're not referring to the "promises of reform" that David Cameron was parading after returning from his negotiating tour.
A meme doesn't make an argument. A more pertinent historical reference might be how the biggest Brexit supporter, the Daily Mail, supported Chamberlain and described Adolf Hitler as "a man we can work with."
the UK is not committed to further integration - that's a sea change in attitude. You can go la la la and pretend it doesn't exist (a bit like some people claim the rebate doesn't exist, or how if we don't pay the EU anything they'll keep sending us funds).
Also, recently he secured the concession that child benefit is paid at a level that reflects cost of living in the child's country.
Anyway, as you were, there are plenty of valid, reasonable arguments for Leave that don't fly in the face of reality, and that don't consist of pasting in memes!
Ok, I watched rthe latest debate on BBC. I'm....astounded that leave has lasted this long. I heard a lot of actual information from Remain, and lot of Trump, to coin a phrase, from Leave.
To boil it down while parodying it just a wee bit:
"We should leave, wrap ourselves in the Union Jack, and scream God Save the Queen and feth the EU!'
"But what about lost jobs and out newfound lack of trade treaties?"
'We'll force the EU to bow to our will because we're strong and England forever!"
"How will we be strong with no jobs?'
"Because England is never stronger than when commoners are starving in the streets! Just ask Nelson and Wellington! We beat the Nazis while we huddled in bombed out houses, we can do it again!'
"What does that have to do with....."
"feth THE KRAUTS AND FROGS AND THE PAKIS!"
"Now, wait just a moment!"
"CEASE YOUR BELITTLEING ENGLAND, YOU TRAITORS!"
"Quick, get the mike off him he's losing it!"
"WE'LL BUILD A WALL AROUND THE MICKS AND MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT!"
I actually though David Beckham put it better than anyone else.
RObert Peston tweeted that Cameron is totally changing his style, as the money argument isn't working - Beckham's Remain for the kids, for the future, is far more emotive .
And did anyone see John Barnes's takedown of Gove? Magisterial. "We are world leaders, from a moral point of view.... and we're going to be the first to jump ship when things get tough? "
Who'd have thought it was English footballers who'd bring intellectual vigour and insight to the campaign?
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, I watched rthe latest debate on BBC. I'm....astounded that leave has lasted this long. I heard a lot of actual information from Remain, and lot of Trump, to coin a phrase, from Leave.
To boil it down while parodying it just a wee bit:
"We should leave, wrap ourselves in the Union Jack, and scream God Save the Queen and feth the EU!'
"But what about lost jobs and out newfound lack of trade treaties?"
'We'll force the EU to bow to our will because we're strong and England forever!"
"How will we be strong with no jobs?'
"Because England is never stronger than when commoners are starving in the streets! Just ask Nelson and Wellington! We beat the Nazis while we huddled in bombed out houses, we can do it again!'
"What does that have to do with....."
"feth THE KRAUTS AND FROGS AND THE PAKIS!"
"Now, wait just a moment!"
"CEASE YOUR BELITTLEING ENGLAND, YOU TRAITORS!"
"Quick, get the mike off him he's losing it!"
"WE'LL BUILD A WALL AROUND THE MICKS AND MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT!"
"Get some facts, he's going full Trump!"
Would you mind toning the flame bait down just a little, please?
As opposed to most of the remain comments which are along the lines of us leaving is equivalent to either Suicide or the beginnings of WW3. We don't know with who. We can only imagine it's Russia vs the EU.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS. The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
1. Anyone who's been paying attention has known this for months, up here we've been howling about it to the usual total lack of regard from WM.
2. If the UK government wanted one, it could fairly easily negotiate an exception for the NHS much as other EU countries are negotiating exceptions for their state-owned industry, healthcare, and transport organisations. As far as we know the UK government have made no such attempt.
3. France, as far as we know, is planning to refuse to accede to the treaty, meaning TTIP is functionally dead for the moment as it requires unanimity.
4. And lastly, using this to bash the EU and big up Brexit is frankly hilarious, given that by the definition of the WHO the UK(ie England & Wales, up here ours is public and will stay that way ta very much) already doesn't have an NHS any more because of the rampant privatisation and marketisation of the last thirty years, which the current government has only accelerated - are we meant to believe our friendly local Tory government is suddenly, once freed of the onerous shackles of EU regulation that don't mandate any of the actions they've taken re the NHS so far, are suddenly going to volte face?
I think it's rather more likely that they'll carry right on privatising away entirely of their own accord, then rush out to sign TTIP anyway because they'll be desperate to shore up their international cred in the face of a justifiably obstinate EU negotiating team.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
That's some weapons-grade scare-mongering there...
If you don't believe it, go read the papers yourself. Greenpeace leaked them.
Nations can walk away from agreements, so I find it hard to believe that the UK would allow the EU to effectively destroy a program if the populace doesn't want to...
Not that my opinion matters, but I'd favor a Brexit... to preserve UK's self-determination if nothing else. But, I have no flipping clue as to what that actually means.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
That's some weapons-grade scare-mongering there...
If you don't believe it, go read the papers yourself. Greenpeace leaked them.
Nations can walk away from agreements, so I find it hard to believe that the UK would allow the EU to effectively destroy a program if the populace doesn't want to...
Kind of hard to do that when the commission doesn't directly answer to the populace though..
1. Anyone who's been paying attention has known this for months, up here we've been howling about it to the usual total lack of regard from WM.
2. If the UK government wanted one, it could fairly easily negotiate an exception for the NHS much as other EU countries are negotiating exceptions for their state-owned industry, healthcare, and transport organisations. As far as we know the UK government have made no such attempt.
3. France, as far as we know, is planning to refuse to accede to the treaty, meaning TTIP is functionally dead for the moment as it requires unanimity.
4. And lastly, using this to bash the EU and big up Brexit is frankly hilarious, given that by the definition of the WHO the UK(ie England & Wales, up here ours is public and will stay that way ta very much) already doesn't have an NHS any more because of the rampant privatisation and marketisation of the last thirty years, which the current government has only accelerated - are we meant to believe our friendly local Tory government is suddenly, once freed of the onerous shackles of EU regulation that don't mandate any of the actions they've taken re the NHS so far, are suddenly going to volte face?
I think it's rather more likely that they'll carry right on privatising away entirely of their own accord, then rush out to sign TTIP anyway because they'll be desperate to shore up their international cred in the face of a justifiably obstinate EU negotiating team.
This. If you want someone to fight for the NHS then the Tories and UKIP are not who you're looking for.
By the looks of things it wouldn't matter how much we disliked it, it's legally binding and even if we managed to shoo away the vultures one year, they'll be right back again next year for another go.
And we don't get a say in it.
And the decisions were made in secret.
Again.
I trust these people about as far a i can kick their parliamentary buildings.
It looks like a group of local people have already sent in a petition/protest to my local MP about TTIP and have had meetings with him about it and related matters.
So, um, yeah. I can't find what's happened as a result of that but, yeah... Kinda feels like that's what's supposed to happen to me...
SirDonlad wrote: By the looks of things it wouldn't matter how much we disliked it, it's legally binding and even if we managed to shoo away the vultures one year, they'll be right back again next year for another go.
And we don't get a say in it.
And the decisions were made in secret.
Again.
I trust these people about as far a i can kick their parliamentary buildings.
Once you've left the EU, what international trade agreements are you going to join?
The only thing for sure will be it is a UK goverment that would arrange it and not the 'eu' trade commisioner (does anyone actually know they are without google) who we dont elect and who dosent have our intrests at heart.
The European Commission has said that it will include "tried and tested" provisions in TTIP that will ensure governments have freedom to organise their health services how they wish.
First, it wants the deal to include an exception for services provided "in the exercise of governmental authority".
The Commission also points to the statement that “public utilities”—including health services—can be provided by a state monopoly or can be limited to a certain number of private providers.
More specifically, it wants the agreement to say that EU countries reserve the right to exclude foreign companies from "health services which receive public funding or State support in any form and are therefore not considered to be privately funded".
And the Commission wants to include a statement that investment protection doesn’t affect the right of governments to pursue “legitimate policy objectives such as... public health”.
All these wordings are intended to allow EU governments to keep their health services public, or nationalise them in future.
The EU trade commissioner has written to the government saying that “there is no reason to fear either for the NHS as it stands today or for changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP”.
In March 2015, EU and US negotiators released a joint statement saying that "US and EU trade agreements do not prevent governments... from providing or supporting services" in areas including health, and don't force the privatisation of public services.
Frankly -- bearing in mind the govt. provided healthcare in mainland Europe here -- the NHS is under more threat from the Tories than the EU.
.. That said TTIp is a pretty awful piece of legislation.
Major leak from Brussels reveals NHS will be ‘KILLED OFF’ if Britain remains in the EU Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
The NHS is dead if the tories have their way anyway. Plus who says we won't have TTIP forced on us if we leave anyway? I mean, it's pretty much a US driven thing to aid US businesses, so what's to stop the US demanding we comply with the whole thing in order to get a good trade deal? We'd be entering negotiations with an awful lot less bargaining power if we leave.
If we remain in the EU, we still have the ability to shape the TTIP deal (which we don't seem interested in) and are in a better position to decline any parts of it we don't like (which, unfortunately, we won't do, because the tories have a vested interest in killing the NHS anyway).
If we leave, we will be better able to vote in a new government that opposes it. That's the only thing that will ultimately protect us TTIP. The EU - even if France vetoed it, the EU will get its way eventually. The EU always gets what it wants sooner or later.
We also asked voters how much economic pain they were prepared to suffer to break free of Brussels control.
In a contradictory finding, three in five Brits – 61% – say that they would be willing to accept a short term economic slowdown in order to see EU immigration controls tightened, which Brexit would allow.
But a significant majority of more than two thirds – 68% – at the same time insist they are not willing to lose any cash at all personally to reduce the number of migrants coming in from Europe.
We also asked voters how much economic pain they were prepared to suffer to break free of Brussels control.
In a contradictory finding, three in five Brits – 61% – say that they would be willing to accept a short term economic slowdown in order to see EU immigration controls tightened, which Brexit would allow.
But a significant majority of more than two thirds – 68% – at the same time insist they are not willing to lose any cash at all personally to reduce the number of migrants coming in from Europe.
ah Britain, don't ever change
These would probably be the same people who thought we should intervene in Syria but that they ALSO thought would also make the world a more dangerous place ie lunatics.
The idea that people who think in that twisty, illogical manner are about to vote on something that will have such a massive impact on everyone's future genuinely terrifies me.
Blimey, this thread's ratcheted up to Alarm Level: Hysterical in the few days I've been away.
Keep it urbane and factual gents. People have differences of opinion on things, and that doesn't necessarily make them racists, sheeple, illogical, traitors, or any derivation of the above. Whatever happens? We'll (as a nation) be alright in the long term, of that I'm reasonably certain.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If we leave, we will be better able to vote in a new government that opposes it. That's the only thing that will ultimately protect us TTIP. The EU - even if France vetoed it, the EU will get its way eventually. The EU always gets what it wants sooner or later.
How does being in the EU have any bearing on how we vote in our own government? We'd also need to get a government in that will actually oppose TTIP (I've seen no indication that the Tories will, and I doubt Labour will). At least as part of the EU, we've got some weight behind opposing it, and since we've got the ability to veto or ignore all sorts of things in the EU, it's no more binding on us as part of the EU as if we were independent.
Worth a read and some of the points made are worth consideration. Some highlights:
But being virtuous means shutting everyone else up. Manifest in PC, this can cause real harm - as was evident in the abuse scandals in Rotherham, Oxford and Rochdale, and several other towns, which saw fathers arrested as they attempted to rescue their daughters. Years elapsed after warnings before the perpetrators were arrested, and the victims run into the tens of thousands. It should be everyone's concern that the fascist far right can now present themselves as "defenders of the community". How did the Hell did we ever let them have a sniff of the moral high ground?
We've heard a lot about "divisiveness" for the past few days – about how we need to pull together in unity. Awful "genies have been released from bottles", and need to be stuffed back in. For me, this is not only hypocritical, it merely kicks the can a few yards down the road. And it creates more fertile ground for fascists.
That's my three reasons: reboot British political culture, reboot Europe, and stop a completely avoidable self-mutilation. All seem worth a temporary period of air turbulence. The Left could return to its roots and rebuild its working class base in communities, rather than sneering at the plebs and helping grow the far right. The UK could rebuild a new, more fit-for-purpose network of European institutions.
In one of his most famous essays, George Orwell identified "the frightful inferiority complex of the English intellectual," forever embarrassed to be British – and I think this is behind much of the desire to "be at the heart of Europe". This self-flagellation (I think it's a public school thing) permeates the Remain campaign's negativity.
Zedmeister, you're setting an absurdly low bar for what you consider to be far right fascism. UKIP is fascist? Really? . At best they're Right Wing, not Far Right.
Britain First and the BNP are far right, not UKIP.
Yes, you are right. In my haste, I went overboard. My intention wasn't to conflate one with the other, but it ended up sounding that way. I've withdrawn my statement...
Yes, you are right. In my haste, I went overboard. My intention wasn't to conflate one with the other, but it ended up sounding that way. I've withdrawn my statement...
Thankyou.
In any case, I agree with your point. The rise of UKIP (and other parties that are actually far right fascists) is down to the failure of mainstream parties and governments to deal with the issues plaguing Europe now, and more specifically, the tendency to denounce anyone and everyone concerned about these things as racist fascists. People aren't voting for these parties because they're all inherently racist. They're voting for them because they feel betrayed and abandoned by the mainstream and believe they have no other choice. That's how the Weimar Republic fell.
There's no better way to drive people into the arms of extremists.
We had a recession which, 8 years later, we are still barely recovering from due to economic policy, and there's a lot of anger about that which is being partially directed towards immigrants and immigration through widespread media vilification of them.
Yes, disenfranchisement is one of the causes, but it is by no means the only one.
Do you think there would have been a referendum if newspapers hadn't only ever reported the outrageous stories about the EU? There wouldn't be anywhere near as much anger if headlines had read "EU votes on regulation regarding charging cable standardisation" rather than the standard "EU overrides British Court to prevent Hero Father from giving justice to Paedo" type headlines we've been getting?
There's a load of bits which have prompted the rise of this right-wing hatred of the EU, and a fair chunk of them were intentional manipulations by certain media groups.
Personally I'd vote for anyone that seemed to have a decent plan for the future of the UK and who actually represented the interests of the people, but no party does that at the moment (for me anyway, YMMV)
Both sides of the EU referendum make me sick to my stomach frankly. If its not leave boogieman bullgak, its remain boogieman bullgak. I'll be glad when its over tomorrow, if indeed it is over. I only hope one side wins convincingly and it doesn't drag on forever.
Worth a read and some of the points made are worth consideration.
Agreed. They are all worth consideration. Many of us have thought about these points, but have come to the conclusion that most left-wingers have made (which is why Labour Leave is financed by Tory donors):
"If Britain votes Brexit, then Johnson and Gove stand ready to seize control of the Tory party and turn Britain into a neoliberal fantasy island. They will have two years in which to shape the post-Brexit economy. Worse, the Tories will be free to use the sudden disappearance of our rights as EU citizens to reshape the UK’s de facto constitution. The man who destroyed state control of education and the man who shovelled acres of free land into the hands of London developers will get to determine the new balance of power between the citizen and the state. So even for those who support the leftwing case for Brexit, it is sensible to argue: not now."
We had a recession which, 8 years later, we are still barely recovering from due to economic policy, and there's a lot of anger about that which is being partially directed towards immigrants and immigration through widespread media vilification of them.
Yes, disenfranchisement is one of the causes, but it is by no means the only one.
Do you think there would have been a referendum if newspapers hadn't only ever reported the outrageous stories about the EU? There wouldn't be anywhere near as much anger if headlines had read "EU votes on regulation regarding charging cable standardisation" rather than the standard "EU overrides British Court to prevent Hero Father from giving justice to Paedo" type headlines we've been getting?
There's a load of bits which have prompted the rise of this right-wing hatred of the EU, and a fair chunk of them were intentional manipulations by certain media groups.
That is also true. Fascism is always accompanied by propaganda.
But it isn't a good reason for leaving the EU. If leaving should cause another economic problem -- and it will -- that would feed into the continued rise of fascism.
FYI, I was kidding about Choudary. Like I'd base my whole decision on one person. If we leave though it will satisfying to see that he's been defeated in this regard though.
And UKIP supporters are not fascists, despite what UAF would tell you. In fact, UAF are closer to fascists, what with the physical attacks against their opponents.
Pete Melvin wrote: Personally I'd vote for anyone that seemed to have a decent plan for the future of the UK and who actually represented the interests of the people, but no party does that at the moment (for me anyway, YMMV)
Both sides of the EU referendum make me sick to my stomach frankly. If its not leave boogieman bullgak, its remain boogieman bullgak. I'll be glad when its over tomorrow, if indeed it is over. I only hope one side wins convincingly and it doesn't drag on forever.
That's never going to happen.
This is going to last until either Britiain is fully absorbed by the EU, or until the EU burns to a crisp.
I want to say thank you too. I was happy to see that people could put out different opinions without being bullied or censored over it like other places I know.
Pete Melvin wrote: Personally I'd vote for anyone that seemed to have a decent plan for the future of the UK and who actually represented the interests of the people, but no party does that at the moment (for me anyway, YMMV)
Both sides of the EU referendum make me sick to my stomach frankly. If its not leave boogieman bullgak, its remain boogieman bullgak. I'll be glad when its over tomorrow, if indeed it is over. I only hope one side wins convincingly and it doesn't drag on forever.
That's never going to happen.
This is going to last until either Britiain is fully absorbed by the EU, or until the EU burns to a crisp.
Here are the reasons I shall vote Remain tomorrow.
The economy The UK has only recently got back to where it was in early 2008. We don’t want another slowdown.
There is no doubt the UK economy will take a hit if we vote Leave. 90% of economists and business leaders say this. The proof is in the reactions of the foreign exchange and stock markets to the ups and downs of the opinion polls.
We don’t know how bad things will be, or how long it will last, but we certainly shall have to play catch up afterwards.
Can the UK's economy grow faster outside the EU? No-one knows.
Trade If we leave the EU we can make our own trade agreements. The first one we will have to make will be with the EU, to restore the major trade channel we will have lost. This seems a waste of time and effort. Better to stay in the EU and have a seat at the table when trade between the EU and other countries is being discussed.
Red tape The EU is not the cause of red tape. Our own government generates plenty of red tape by itself.
After leaving we will have to produce a lot of new red tape to satisfy the various trade agreements we will want to enter into. A lot of that red tape will relate to international standards.
Standards We will have to maintain the same international standards we do now -- in other words EU, US and international standards (some of which are set largely by the UK.)
The EU isn't going to let us trade with them on our own terms. Look at Norway and Switzerland. They are practically EU members in all but name, except they don't have a seat at the table during negotiations and decisions.
International affairs and diplomacy The UK runs its own foreign policy and armed forces within the EU, and is a member of NATO. This will not change if we Leave.
The UK will remain subject to the European Court for Human Rights, and our treaty obligations will remain in force, if we Leave.
The UK is part of the EU Arrest Warrant system. If we leave, we shall have to negotiate an extradition treaty with the EU. This will be clunkier than the current arrangements.
Transparency and Sovereignty This is the main area where the EU is lacking. Despite the fact that EU policy and directives are agreed by representatives of the member governments (democratically elected) there is a real concern that its deals are done behind closed doors without proper democratic accountability.
This is something the EU needs to address. By remaining inside the EU we can have a major say in these necessary changes. By leaving, we will have no say, but we will still be restricted by our need to conform with EU standards and laws in order to trade with them.
Immigration No-one knows the “right” level of emigration, but it’s difficult to believe that 0.5% of population per year is impossible to accommodate. Hits on services are the result of bad planning by our government, and weakness in the economy caused by bad planning by our government.
We have a serious need for talent in various fields including as medicine, engineering and building trade skills. We can’t find these people from our own population so we need immigrants.
We already control non-EU emigration. After Leave, if we want to enter the European Free Market area, we probably will have to accept free movement from EU citizens, like Switzerland and Norway. Nothing will have changed.
Emigration There is an upside! Britons can freely emigrate to EU countries to live, work or study.
Refugees The UK's obligations under international law are not dependent on EU membership, and will not go away by leaving the EU.
The Euro The UK is not bound to join the Euro and has no plans to do so. Because of this, the UK does not make the same level of contributions to European Central Bank funds as Euro nations, and we don’t have serious exposure to Eurozone defaults like Greece.
EU Membership Fees The net amount of fees is disputed, because the UK gets a rebate, and also has substantial amounts of grants from the EU to both public and private bodies.
In the end we do pay something in, and this is what buys us the advantages of membership like Free Trade and the Arrest Warrant.
If we Leave, and join the Free Market, we will end up having to pay some dues like Norway and Switzerland.
Those are pretty much my reasons as well KK, but with the addition of a few others:
Universities Our university system relies heavily on research grants and collaboration with the EU. These will all be lost in the event of a Leave vote. Considering the gutting of the education system over the past few years I will not be complicit in further eroding the ability of people to get an education, nor Britain's world-leading position of scientific excellence, a position that will surely take a large hit should we lose our agreements.
Not London Over the past few years, a lot of areas in the north of England and other non-London areas around the UK have undergone regeneration projects, almost all of which were done through EU grants rather than any contribution from the UK government. I do not want to cause these areas and areas like them to be unable to renew themselves, nor am I willing to take the EU's money and run. In addition, areas such as Northern Ireland and Wales receive a large chunk of their normal funding from the EU due to neglect by Westminster, something which again I will not willingly cause.
Division, Prejudice and Xenophobia Over the past few years, the atmosphere in this country has become more and more toxic towards foreigners and immigrants. Isolating ourselves by leaving the EU will do absolutely nothing to help this and will likely only deepen the rifts that are already present in our culture. They need to be repaired, not worsened.
LGBT issues Boris Johnson has argued that LGBT people should vote leave due to the UK being sort-of-ok regarding LGBT issues compared to the rest of europe. My response to this is an angry "Piss off." The EU has been central to the implementation of a lot of the rights and protections that LGBT people currently benefit from in the UK, and a lot of these were directly opposed by the current Tory government. If we were to leave the EU and draw up our own "declaration of rights" as has been bandied about, I have absolutely zero faith that all of the protections offered by EU law would be continued, were it to be written under a Tory government, a situation that is likely to happen should a Leave result happen.
There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious
Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.
What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.
There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious
Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.
What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.
Not having a go at you, but one of the main pillars of the Remain argument seems to be that a leave vote will give us Tory Governments for a million years or something, which is plainly nonsense. The left could offer an alternative and win a General Election.
High-street banks are stockpiling cash for Friday under orders of the financial regulator, in case a vote to leave the EU prompts mass withdrawals.
With the memory of customers queueing outside Northern Rock branches at the start of the financial crisis still haunting UK authorities, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority has kept in close contact with the largest banks, including Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland, to make sure all cash machines and banking websites are operational and that they are prepared for the aftermath of a Brexit vote in Thursday’s referendum.
As well as the amount of cash they are holding, banks’ IT systems and infrastructure have also come under the scrutiny of the PRA, with lenders being quizzed on how well prepared they are for Thursday and Friday.
The BoE has said that uncertainty about the EU referendum is the biggest risk to the UK’s short-term financial stability, and “possibly” the biggest risk to international markets too.
With the polls still too close to call, George Soros, who made a fortune betting against the pound in 1992 when the UK crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, joined the chorus of financiers forecasting a plunge in sterling’s value if there were a vote to leave the EU. Britain risked another “black Friday”, Mr Soros said.
Making sure the banks have enough cash to cope with mass withdrawals around the time of big events is standard practice for the PRA. It took similar steps before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.
Some banks have said they are avoiding critical system updates over the period of the referendum.
Giles Williams, a partner at consultancy KPMG, said that banks were being “extremely careful” about undertaking technology updates right now, putting off non-essential work.
However, RBS, which received a £56m fine from the PRA and Financial Conduct Authority after an IT upgrade went wrong in 2012, is in the process of overhauling a large part of its ATM network, replacing cash machines in 300 of its branches in England and Wales.
An RBS banker said that while some activities are put on hold at the time of big events, no problems were forecast in relation to cash machines because the migration process “is so low-risk”.
The BoE declined to comment on specific plans but said: “We are engaging in more intensive supervision with all our big institutions.”
Andrew Bailey, the head of the PRA, has previously said that the regulator was in daily discussions with banks about risks posed by the EU referendum.
Link, which operates the UK’s ATM network, said it was working “to ensure everyone can enjoy safe, reliable and easy access to their cash and we are confident that whatever way the vote goes, ATMs will operate as normal up and down the country”.
London-based legal firms as well as the big banks have said they will run “war rooms” on the night of June 23 and during the day of June 24, to monitor developments and advise clients.
Clifford Chance, one of London’s top law firms, said it was setting up a “24/7 Brexit rapid response unit” to respond to client queries in London, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas.
“The facility will be staffed from the opening of the polls for as long as necessary,” said Clifford Chance’s senior partner, Malcolm Sweeting.
Dechert, another law firm, said it had set up a Brexit hotline for existing and new clients.
TransferWise, a money transfer business, has also announced that it “will limit GBP transfers later in the week”.
There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious
Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.
What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.
Not having a go at you, but one of the main pillars of the Remain argument seems to be that a leave vote will give us Tory Governments for a million years or something, which is plainly nonsense. The left could offer an alternative and win a General Election.
Permanent Tory rule is not set in stone.
Not permanent, no, but almost certainly for the foreseeable future. Does anyone seriously believe that, short of literally everyone in the Tory party being outed as a paedophile, Labour have any shot at the next election? They would struggle even if they were solidly united behind Corbyn and offering policies people want, but caught as they are with Corbyn caving at every turn and Blairites briefing against him relentlessly I don't believe for a second anyone but the Tories will win in England in 2020(and in so doing, win the whole UK). That leaves the Tories in charge during the EU withdrawal negotiations, it leaves the Tories in charge during the subsequent international treaty negotiations, and then it leaves us with a Tory government for a minimum of five further years free to do their worst without anyone to restrain them.
Given they've already managed to functionally end the NHS in England and turned the incapacity benefit system into a total horror show that treats the sick & disabled like lying cattle even while within the EU, the thought of what they could do to what little remains of the postwar consensus at a pan-UK level in five unfettered years is horrifying to me.
Given they've already managed to functionally end the NHS in England and turned the incapacity benefit system into a total horror show that treats the sick & disabled like lying cattle even while within the EU, the thought of what they could do to what little remains of the postwar consensus at a pan-UK level in five unfettered years is horrifying to me.
You've missed out what has happened in education. I'm a school governor and I think it's even worse than the NHS. No functional tests for primary schools, the Department recently told us there would be "many years" of uncertainty about tests... and of course Gove was at the forefront of eliminating parents' voice from educution, with the removal of mandatory parent governors.Out of 142 LA education departments, over 120 are not financially viable as so much money has been taken out of the system, so soon all democratic oversight will be gone. I was told this morning mine will be gone within a year and we have to work out what to do without them.
It's totally beyond belief. I don't really tell acquaintances about it as it's all done now, a fait accompli.
After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.
Exactly; the Tories (the only real party at the moment) have almost destroyed public services in the last sitting, with the EU. I've got approximately zero faith that they won't do even worse without any oversight.
We tried reforming the electoral system before the last general election, and it failed. Why would we try and reform anything again if we leave the EU, when the people responsible for making those changes are also the only ones to lose out from it?
Another thing has occurred to me; if it's going to take 2+ years to unroll the Libson treaty, in order to leave the EU, how much is the act of leaving alone going to actually cost in terms of man hours / resources that could do something else?
If we're talking about an economy that's going to tank momentarily, then we'll have to pay out for that effort first before we can start being any better off.
Future War Cultist wrote: After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.
Yup. So it's good that doesn't happen, in Europe, right? As in, elected MEPs get to vote on laws - rather than in the UK where party donors ie Lords can change laws at the last moment.
It's good, too, that in the EU any one nation can veto laws on crucial issues like defence.
Democratic oversight is wonderful. Shame, as mentioned before, it's being eliminated from the UK educational system at local level.
Future War Cultist wrote: After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.
Yup. So it's good that doesn't happen, in Europe, right? As in, elected MEPs get to vote on laws - rather than in the UK where party donors ie Lords can change laws at the last moment.
It's good, too, that in the EU any one nation can veto laws on crucial issues like defence.
Democratic oversight is wonderful. Shame, as mentioned before, it's being eliminated from the UK educational system at local level.
Nothing to stop the British people from voting for a government that restores oversight at a local level. Nothing is set in stone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: We'd also get a lot more representation in the EU if our MEP's actually bothered to show up and represent us, too.[/quote
Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.
Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
The PM's powers are quite extensive.
In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)
The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.
Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.
There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.
Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.
Indeed, but if they never turn up then they are always outvoted. Plus, IIRC, in the votes we've taken part in, we've been on the winning side about 92% of the time, so it's not as if we're being run roughshod by the EU as the Leave campaigners want to claim.
It's just not fair to claim that the EU is undemocratic and we're completely ignored, when our representatives deliberately don't get involved (like Nigel Farage). It's exactly the same as claiming that our own government don't represent us when we didn't vote. (They don't represent me, because I was one of the 64% that voted against them).
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
The PM's powers are quite extensive.
In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)
The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.
Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.
There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.
I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist
BUT
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
Nothing to stop the British people from voting for a government that restores oversight at a local level. Nothing is set in stone.
Except we're pretty much in a single party race now; labour has destroyed itself from inside, Lib Dems have no credibility left, Greens never got anywhere, and the other parties are all very local.
We could have had a Labour/SNP coalition that might have made a majority, if Labour hadn't refused to consider it.
So whilst we could vote in someone to replace the Tories, there's no credible option yet, and they'll only get voted out once they've turned enough people against them.
Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.
Indeed, but if they never turn up then they are always outvoted. Plus, IIRC, in the votes we've taken part in, we've been on the winning side about 92% of the time, so it's not as if we're being run roughshod by the EU as the Leave campaigners want to claim.
It's just not fair to claim that the EU is undemocratic and we're completely ignored, when our representatives deliberately don't get involved (like Nigel Farage). It's exactly the same as claiming that our own government don't represent us when we didn't vote. (They don't represent me, because I was one of the 64% that voted against them).
To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage
He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.
I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist
BUT
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
With our current media? Not likely. The Sun is the most widely read paper in Britain, isn't it?
The last time we tried to bring in some form of reform (AV) it was savagely mauled by the Tories and all the right-wing press, which is the majority of the press in terms of readership.
To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage
He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.
But if he does that then he should also accept the effects of that and not get paid for a job he isn't doing, or claiming benefits for a job he isn't doing. He can't not participate but still keep the perks.
All his no-showing did was remove the British peoples voice. He harps on about the british fishing industry when he was meant to be on that committee, fighting for those british fishermen. That he now claims to stand beside them is possibly the most disgusting hypocrisy of the whole campaign.
I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist
BUT
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
With our current media? Not likely. The Sun is the most widely read paper in Britain, isn't it?
The last time we tried to bring in some form of reform (AV) it was savagely mauled by the Tories and all the right-wing press, which is the majority of the press in terms of readership.
To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage
He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.
But if he does that then he should also accept the effects of that and not get paid for a job he isn't doing, or claiming benefits for a job he isn't doing. He can't not participate but still keep the perks.
All his no-showing did was remove the British peoples voice. He harps on about the british fishing industry when he was meant to be on that committee, fighting for those british fishermen. That he now claims to stand beside them is possibly the most disgusting hypocrisy of the whole campaign.
You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
.... .... ....
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
We pissed away a good chance in the Proportional Representation referendum a few years ago.
The question was too specific. It should have been whether to develop a PR system, not specifically AV. There are lots of ways it could be done.
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
The PM's powers are quite extensive.
In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)
The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.
Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.
There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.
You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.
Agree with you about Farage and the Fishermen.
But why was that perception there, is the question?
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
The PM's powers are quite extensive.
In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)
The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.
Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.
There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.
Blame Tony Blair for that.
The rot started with Thatcher. Blair did a lot of damage and Cameron has continued with it.
It would be foolish to predict the result, because the polls are so close, but I will predict this:
Regardless of the vote, the UK is coming to an end IMO.
If it's a leave vote, I think Scotland will go in a few years.
If it's remain, UKIP's support will skyrocket, as anybody who voted leave will never return to Lab/Lib/Con, and we'll see a rise of English nationalism, which will break the Union...
The greatest union in history, UK plc, is coming to an end
You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.
Agree with you about Farage and the Fishermen.
But why was that perception there, is the question?
This is just my opinion, but a lot of people blame Clegg for the Tory coalition in 2010, because without Liberal support, it wouldn't have happened.
Whether the country needed it or not, is another debate, but that's my take. So any chance to punish Clegg (AV referendum) was gleefully taken.
I voted against it, because I thought the proposals were half-baked and made on the hoof.
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
.... .... ....
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
We pissed away a good chance in the Proportional Representation referendum a few years ago.
The question was too specific. It should have been whether to develop a PR system, not specifically AV. There are lots of ways it could be done.
The Alternative Vote is not Proportional Representation.
Nick Clegg lost that referendum because the electorate did not like the solution offered, not because they oppose electoral reform altogether.
Kilkrazy wrote: Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).
.... .... ....
the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...
I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...
We pissed away a good chance in the Proportional Representation referendum a few years ago.
The question was too specific. It should have been whether to develop a PR system, not specifically AV. There are lots of ways it could be done.
The Alternative Vote is not Proportional Representation.
Nick Clegg lost that referendum because the electorate did not like the solution offered, not because they oppose electoral reform altogether.
That is exactly my point. It should have been a more open question to allow the public to indicate their desire for a move away from the FPTP system. But the referendum was set up as a simple choice:
1. The status quo.
2. An unappealing alternative.
This is a standard tactic when a government feels forced into a referendum on a topic it doesn't want to tackle.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm not so sure Scotland will leave. Especially with oil the price it is and the EU possibly collapsing by the end of the decade. But it is a concern.
If we get a Leave vote, and (I suspect) most of Scotland votes for Remain, then I can easily see another Indyref. Sturgeon has already talked about doing so, and talked about trying to make a deal directly with the EU in the mean time.
Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45, due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical. Polls shortly afterwards indicated that if they'd re-run it a few weeks later it'd have gone the other way (due to the number of Remain voters changing their mind). I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then, and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything.
Oh god, the AV referendum. Lots of misinformation, some Australian friends angrily said at the time; but the proposed change was both so minor and so unhelpful (it didn't solve any of the problems that the referendum was called to address...) that I couldn't vote for it. At least FPTP works, even if the results are wonky; the end result of it is a strong government, which is a useful thing. AV seemed to be basically the same thing, but giving slightly less strong governments; what use is that? It seemed like a great way to merely undermine the one good thing about our current system.
I'm amazed that the Lib Dems didn't try to push for adopting the Scottish Parliament system. (In short - FPTP-style constituency MSPs sit side-by-side with PR-style list MSPs, giving a chamber with both constituencies and proportionality.) That could surely have been an easier sell, and you could have tried to swing it into also reforming the House of Lords at the same moment (i.e. make the PR guys the Lords) for 10x combo points.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I have spoken to a lot of Scots friends recently who voted to stay in the Union - but would definitely want out in the event of a Leave verdict.
It would be a catastrophic mess.
If we do vote Leave, I want independence for London, too.
Because where London treads the rest don't follow anyway?
Except men wearing dresses, Scotland got the jump on everyone there.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I have spoken to a lot of Scots friends recently who voted to stay in the Union - but would definitely want out in the event of a Leave verdict.
Charles Rampant wrote: Oh god, the AV referendum. Lots of misinformation, some Australian friends angrily said at the time; but the proposed change was both so minor and so unhelpful (it didn't solve any of the problems that the referendum was called to address...) that I couldn't vote for it. At least FPTP works, even if the results are wonky; the end result of it is a strong government, which is a useful thing. AV seemed to be basically the same thing, but giving slightly less strong governments; what use is that? It seemed like a great way to merely undermine the one good thing about our current system.
I'm amazed that the Lib Dems didn't try to push for adopting the Scottish Parliament system. (In short - FPTP-style constituency MSPs sit side-by-side with PR-style list MSPs, giving a chamber with both constituencies and proportionality.) That could surely have been an easier sell, and you could have tried to swing it into also reforming the House of Lords at the same moment (i.e. make the PR guys the Lords) for 10x combo points.
Yeah, that's one thing I do like about the Scottish Parliament - the voting system is a lot better, and a majority is still possible, but not easy.
The House of Lords could really do with being an American style Senate, with vastly reduced numbers, 7 year terms, with half being elected every 3-4 years like the American mid-terms, and some more powers to balance it against the Commons.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I have spoken to a lot of Scots friends recently who voted to stay in the Union - but would definitely want out in the event of a Leave verdict.
It would be a catastrophic mess.
If we do vote Leave, I want independence for London, too.
Because where London treads the rest don't follow anyway?
Except men wearing dresses, Scotland jump the jump on everyone there.
I like this Scottish idea. If you can just readress the imbalance between the individual UK countries it could work. And do something about the House of Lords too.
Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45, due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical. Polls shortly afterwards indicated that if they'd re-run it a few weeks later it'd have gone the other way (due to the number of Remain voters changing their mind). I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then, and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything.
Charles Rampant wrote: Oh god, the AV referendum. Lots of misinformation, some Australian friends angrily said at the time; but the proposed change was both so minor and so unhelpful (it didn't solve any of the problems that the referendum was called to address...) that I couldn't vote for it. At least FPTP works, even if the results are wonky; the end result of it is a strong government, which is a useful thing. AV seemed to be basically the same thing, but giving slightly less strong governments; what use is that? It seemed like a great way to merely undermine the one good thing about our current system.
I'm amazed that the Lib Dems didn't try to push for adopting the Scottish Parliament system. (In short - FPTP-style constituency MSPs sit side-by-side with PR-style list MSPs, giving a chamber with both constituencies and proportionality.) That could surely have been an easier sell, and you could have tried to swing it into also reforming the House of Lords at the same moment (i.e. make the PR guys the Lords) for 10x combo points.
Japan has a similar system.
As you say, reform of the Lords could have been rolled into it. Perhaps a proportionally elected Lords with true powers to amend bills from the Commons.
It must be said though that FPTP did not produce a government in 2010 -- the coalition was a deal, not an election choice -- and did not produce a strong government in 1992 -- Major had endless trouble with his Eurosceptics. The current Conservative government is a few accidents or illnesses away from getting into that situation too.
Obviously this reflects the low number of votes for them.
Future War Cultist wrote: After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.
Yup. So it's good that doesn't happen, in Europe, right? As in, elected MEPs get to vote on laws - rather than in the UK where party donors ie Lords can change laws at the last moment.
It's good, too, that in the EU any one nation can veto laws on crucial issues like defence.
Democratic oversight is wonderful. Shame, as mentioned before, it's being eliminated from the UK educational system at local level.
Also, you know, it's a little rich for a Constitutional Monarchy who's upper chamber is the second largest in the world after China's and is comprised entirely of unelected Lords to complain about democracy being undermined by unelected officials
Also, "society gets the democracy it deserves"? Bum candy. When I encounter people with totally distorted views on welfare or immigration I don't blame "society" and I don't blame them, I blame the media and politicians who have spent decades deliberately manipulating their access to information. It's fine and well to say that the actual facts are out there if you're willing to look, but the reality is most people work their arses off trying to provide for themselves and their families and expecting them to spend most of the little free time they get fact-checking the news just isn't reasonable, let alone realistic. My situation allows me to spend a few hours a week digging through original sources and reading critical analyses of media output, but most people have to rely on what they're told by the press and the press are largely lying, incompetent, partial, lazy scum working within an editorial agenda set by their rich owners, from which the BBC allows their news agenda to be set by.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm not so sure Scotland will leave. Especially with oil the price it is and the EU possibly collapsing by the end of the decade. But it is a concern.
I'm not sure either, but I doubt oil price or pessimistic forecasts about the EU will be the decider in a second indyref - the people who would switch to a Yes vote in order to remain within the EU obviously prefer an imperiled EU to an unfettered Britain, and they are likely motivated either by identity(ie, they're the near-mythical actual-ideological-internationalists as opposed to the Labour numpties using internationalism as a way to bash the SNP much as they use hypothetical multilateral disarmament as a cudgel against anti-Trident campaigners) or by EU-specific economic concerns, in which latter case oil forecasts will be less of a consideration than worry about access to the single market and on what terms.
Whether that's enough to win it? Dunno, but last time we went from about 20% support on average in polls to 45% in the final vote over the course of the campaign, and this time we'd be starting off pretty much neck & neck with the prospect of a Tory-led Brexit in the immediate future and a Labour party that seems intent on suicide - a nearly-two-year campaign(assuming Brexit runs on schedule and we do the sensible thing and target indyref 2 for a couple of months before the planned conclusion of that process) might just do it.
That's assuming we don't get the "Scotland keeps the UK in" scenario, in which case we won't need to leave the UK, England will boot us out
Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45, due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical. Polls shortly afterwards indicated that if they'd re-run it a few weeks later it'd have gone the other way (due to the number of Remain voters changing their mind). I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then, and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything.
That monarch and those lords have zero to little real power (they do cost a fortune though). Can't say the same for the EU Commission and its directives and regulations.
By the nature of things poll results go up and down over time. You could run the referendum every six months and might get a different result each time. That's one reason we don't govern by referendum.
Future War Cultist wrote: ...those lords have zero to little real power (they do cost a fortune though). Can't say the same for the EU Commission and its directives and regulations.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The Lords have terrific power. I've posted before how a bill can be changed beyond recognition in the Lords.
Secondly, laws are proposed/worked on by the commission just like civil servants in the UK - and the laws have to be voted in by elected officials: "[Commission staff], as well as being appointed by the elected governments of the member states, and being subject to confirmation in their positions by the elected European Parliament, and having to report regularly to the EP – cannot make final decisions on EU law or policy. Those decisions are made by the Council of Ministers (consisting of ministers from the elected governments of the member states) and the elected EP. "
Kilkrazy wrote: By the nature of things poll results go up and down over time. You could run the referendum every six months and might get a different result each time. That's one reason we don't govern by referendum.
The Swiss have more referendums than us, and they seem to be getting on fine.
Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45, due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical. Polls shortly afterwards indicated that if they'd re-run it a few weeks later it'd have gone the other way (due to the number of Remain voters changing their mind). I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then, and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything.
What an absolute nonsense this is.
...because?
“Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45”
The indyref wasn’t lost.
“due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical”
Due to or in spite of? Any examples of this hypocritical fear-mongering? E.g. The privatisation of the NHS in event of No vote?..
Oh, wait.
“I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then”
There is no such thing as the English Government.
“and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything”
Source? Anything at all? Nothing? No, nothing.
Please accept that your Nationalism only convinced ~37% of the electorate to support it in that “once in a generation” referendum.
Please respect the fact that this week’s referendum is a UK issue and has nothing to do with Scottish independence.
I will be voting remain on Thursday. Should the result show a Leave majority, I will respect that outcome. That is democracy. There will be no grievance from me.
I most certainly do not give permission for Nicola Sturgeon to use my vote as ammunition as she attempts to manufacture herself an excuse to embark on another horrible, divisive, toxic, indyref drive.
“Bear in mind that the last indyref was lost 55:45”
The indyref wasn’t lost.
The proposal to become independent was rejected, so it (and 45% of voters) lost. I guess it's just semantics though; my point was that it was a very narrow margin and could easily swing either way.
“due to a lot of fearmongering which has been proved to be hypocritical”
Due to or in spite of? Any examples of this hypocritical fear-mongering? E.g. The privatisation of the NHS in event of No vote?..
Oh, wait.
The "Vote No to protect the NHS", quickly followed by Labour claiming "vote Labour to protect your NHS", the promises of more powers for Scotland. I can't remember details but there were a few claims made in the last few days that came across as desperate scaremongering.
I guess polls can say anything. I don't have a citation that contradicts you.
“I can really see it happening this time, as the English government has shafted Scotland (and, to be fair, England and Wales) pretty badly since then”
There is no such thing as the English Government.
The Westminster goverment may as well be the English government, or possible even the London government as it doesn't give them impression of being aware that much outside of London actually exists. You knew what I meant though.
“and Scotland still holds largely opposing views on pretty much everything”
Source? Anything at all? Nothing? No, nothing.
Take the last general election, where Scotland almost exclusively voted SNP (very left), whilst England voted further right (Tory). Pre-SNP Scotland was always very much labour. Scotland has historically always been more left/liberal than England.
Scotland favours immigration, subsidized education and health care, England opposes.
Obviously I'm talking in generalizations, from my own POV (I'm quite the lefty) but politically England and Scotland seem to be pretty distinct anyway.
Please accept that your Nationalism only convinced ~37% of the electorate to support it in that “once in a generation” referendum.
Oh I know.
Please respect the fact that this week’s referendum is a UK issue and has nothing to do with Scottish independence.
I will be voting remain on Thursday. Should the result show a Leave majority, I will respect that outcome. That is democracy. There will be no grievance from me.
I most certainly do not give permission for Nicola Sturgeon to use my vote as ammunition as she attempts to manufacture herself an excuse to embark on another horrible, divisive, toxic, indyref drive.
Back to the football….
I'm not meaning to derail the thread, but what happens in Scotland post-Leave is somewhat relevant - especially if they do go back to the EU. A collegue of mine was apparently told a contingency plan from some London financial types, which was to hope that Scotland rejoins the EU and they relocate up there. Scotland remaining in the EU would drive a lot of import/export businesses over the border to get around all of the additional red tape and insecurity, really throwing a spanner in the works.
Fair enough, I've no interest in digging all this up again.
However, if you'd allow me to take a bit of an issue with this bit....
Take the last general election, where Scotland almost exclusively voted SNP (very left), whilst England voted further right (Tory). Pre-SNP Scotland was always very much labour. Scotland has historically always been more left/liberal than England.
Scotland favours immigration, subsidized education and health care, England opposes.
The SNP are miles away from "very left". Nowhere near left, never have been. They have no left or right. Populist Nationalist only. And while Scotland elected almost exclusively SNP mps in the GE, we certainly didn't vote exclusively SNP (check the numbers). Again, that's democracy unfortunately.
Also, before Scotland generally voted Labour, we generally voted Tory.
Your other assertions about widely differing social attitudes between Scotland and the rest of the UK (or England) are totally baseless. We Scots have no inherent political leanings and no inherent superiority. Moral or otherwise.
Within 24 hours the financial markets will make their statement on the result of the vote, whatever it is. That's going to be the opinion that matters.
Reading the article, it's a bit of a push to suggest no renegotiating anything ever. To me, at least, he clearly just means that there'll be no renegotiating to keep the UK in the EU.
Reading the article, it's a bit of a push to suggest no renegotiating anything ever. To me, at least, he clearly just means that there'll be no renegotiating to keep the UK in the EU.
I thought that, but his quote as saying Cameron got everything we could give is pretty solid regarding no more negotiating for exemptions.
If we vote to stay then we need to be more proactive and call the EU on any amendments they give to other members. Staying in means we need to be active in these 'reforms' that have conveniently been talked about.
Cameron today: '..We are all saying the same thing - we are stronger, we are better off, we are safer in a reformed European Union...." It hasn't reformed yet.
Cameron today: '..We are all saying the same thing - we are stronger, we are better off, we are safer in a reformed European Union...." It hasn't reformed yet.
That's why I don't buy the reform from within argument. The whole mindset of the bureaucracy seems geared towards closer integration and following the ever closer union agenda. As I said earlier in the thread, the EU is a ratchet democracy. They march ever onwards with their vision and no going back, ever. Little concessions and tweaks are made but nothing that could disrupt the overall plan.
EU referendum: Pro-Brexit campaigners branded 'disgusting' as plane carrying banner flies over Jo Cox memorial
The Labour MP's husband was making a speech on what would have been her 42nd birthday
A plane carrying a banner displaying the slogan “Take Control #VoteLeave” has repeatedly flown over Trafalgar Square as Jo Cox’s husband gave an emotional speech at a rally in her memory.
Brendan Cox was telling crowds how the killed Labour MP “lived for her beliefs” and would have been spending the day campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union.
Thousands of people were gathering at events in London, across the UK and around the world to pay tribute to Ms Cox's life and legacy on what would have been her 42nd birthday.
Many of those rallying in Trafalgar Square condemned the appearance of the pro-Brexit plane as “disgusting”, saying the banner flew over the rally several times as the memorial continued.
One person called the appearance “unbelievably tasteless”, while another said it was “completely disrespectful”.
Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, wrote a tweet to the official Vote Leave campaign saying: “Flying your plane over the memorial tribute to Jo Cox in Trafalgar Square is beyond low. Have some self respect and disappear!”
She added: “It's been over twice now - that isn't coincidence @voteleave , that's just sickening disrespect!”
Vote Leave said it did not organise the plane, which had been dispatched by British aircraft manufacturer Britten-Norman as part of its own pro-Brexit campaign.
a press release announcing the stunt, the firm said its banner would be flown around the UK between 9 June and the day before the referendum from a turboprop Islander aircraft.
"We understand that, during a pre-planned photo opportunity over Westminster today, we were visible from Trafalgar Square and that our flight coincided with an important memorial service,” a spokesperson said.
"The timing of our flight was determined by weather, air traffic control and the prior approval of the the Diplomatic Protection Group and required the consent of the Metropolitan Police.
"We are clearly very disappointed that the timing of the service and our flight have overlapped but there was no NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) requesting the avoidance and the coincidence of timing could not have been known by the crew flying the sortie.
"Our sincere apologies to anyone present who has been offended by the overflight. We would also like to take the opportunity to advise that the flight was a private one and was not sanctioned by the official Vote Leave campaign.”
The plane's engines could be heard as Mr Cox fought against tears in an emotional tribute to his late wife.
Your support and your love has helped us all,” he told the crowds. “Today would have been Jo’s 42nd birthday and she would have spent it dashing around the streets of her hometown trying to convince people that Britain is stronger in Europe.”
He said the Labour MP would have been “amazed, baffled and humbled” at the global reaction to her death and the “outpouring of love from around the world”.
A minute’s silence was held during the hour-long celebration of her life, which was also attended by her three-year-old daughter Lejla and son Cuillin, five.
Malala Yousafzai, the education campaigner who was shot in the head by the Taliban for her activism, was among the guest speakers at the rally.
Events were being held in a variety of locations in tribute to Ms Cox's “love, energy, passion, flair, Yorkshire heritage and belief in the humanity of every person in every place”.
Bill Nighy was due to give a reading, while U2 had recorded a musical tribute in Los Angeles.
It may well be a mistake, and apparently nothing to do wth the leave campaign, but what poor timing.
Cameron today: '..We are all saying the same thing - we are stronger, we are better off, we are safer in a reformed European Union...." It hasn't reformed yet.
That's why I don't buy the reform from within argument. The whole mindset of the bureaucracy seems geared towards closer integration and following the ever closer union agenda. As I said earlier in the thread, the EU is a ratchet democracy. They march ever onwards with their vision and no going back, ever. Little concessions and tweaks are made but nothing that could disrupt the overall plan.
The thing is, we can always stay in now and then leave in the future if no reform happens or something else happens we dislike. If we leave now, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get back in, and we'll be given absolutely no special treament. So leaving now because of something that may/may not happen seems a bit short sighted.
A low flying plane has to follow the flight plan it is given.
This is doubly so over London which is very closely watched airspace. The plane could have been booked some time in the past to be available possibly before the Jo Cox murder and its transit path was not looked at in minuitae.
The Brexit campaigners cane be expected to cancel the whole flight, and it would be difficult to divert. It is an unfortunate coincidence of cuircumstances and should be seen as such.
The thing is, we can always stay in now and then leave in the future if no reform happens or something else happens we dislike.
No. We can't.
That is a Salmondism, the idea that you can have repeated referenda at will. The idea of multiple Scottish referenda is very unpopular with the rest of the UK as it is seen as both fickle and a demand for special treatment or the rattles get thrown out of the pram.
Whether Westminster has the balls to stand up to Holyrood is one thing. Brussels will stand up to the UK. We need to leave under Article 50, the article can actually make it difficult for us to leave. Though the EU would be very foolish to hold the UK against its will. However once we confirm a Remain vote, assuming that happens, the Brussels lawmakers can hold to that and if a sec ond referenda is held its results could be voted down on the grounds that we have already had a fair and democratic choice and we chose as a nation to remain.
If we vote in we are IN. If we vote out we are OUT.
If we leave now, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get back in, and we'll be given absolutely no special treament.
If the EU fails and the UK also fails as a result of Brexit, we might be invited to amend the mistake for everyojnes sake. This is a tactical reason for voting Brexit right up to the point that you are calculating on a lose/lose to get the second chance.
If the UK fails and the EU doesnt, we wont get in easily and will have to make concessions. If the EU fails and the UK doesnt, we wont want to. and if it works out for the EU and UK then Brexit was the right move.
We dont know.
So leaving now because of something that may/may not happen seems a bit short sighted.
To be fair to the Brexit argument what they are primarily arguing is fairly certain. If we are out we wont be dictated to by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. All other Brexit arguments, and all aerguments for remain are all based on guesswork. Will be we better off in or out. Frankly nobody knows for absolute certain, we just have different preferred guesses and vested interests,
The thing is, we can always stay in now and then leave in the future if no reform happens or something else happens we dislike. If we leave now, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get back in, and we'll be given absolutely no special treament. So leaving now because of something that may/may not happen seems a bit short sighted.
That argument can be easily be spun about for Remain: Why remain in a bureaucracy that is so fundamentally resistant to reform? If we remain now, it'll be a bigger struggle to Leave in future. So remaining now because of the promise of reform that may/may not be achievable seems a bit short sighted. That's assuming that our elected representatives aren't secretly forging ahead with more integration. Cameron's duplicitous Turkey accession debacle and Heseltine's "we will join the euro" car crash LBC interview are good reasons to not trust what they have to say.
Besides, should we leave and get through the short term shock, get everything in order, I can't see a good reason at present on why we'd want to rejoin?
The thing is, we can always stay in now and then leave in the future if no reform happens or something else happens we dislike.
No. We can't.
That is a Salmondism, the idea that you can have repeated referenda at will. The idea of multiple Scottish referenda is very unpopular with the rest of the UK as it is seen as both fickle and a demand for special treatment or the rattles get thrown out of the pram.
Whether Westminster has the balls to stand up to Holyrood is one thing. Brussels will stand up to the UK. We need to leave under Article 50, the article can actually make it difficult for us to leave. Though the EU would be very foolish to hold the UK against its will. However once we confirm a Remain vote, assuming that happens, the Brussels lawmakers can hold to that and if a sec ond referenda is held its results could be voted down on the grounds that we have already had a fair and democratic choice and we chose as a nation to remain.
If we vote in we are IN. If we vote out we are OUT.
So the only reason we can't leave later is fear of having a 2nd referendum?
I agree we don't want to do it constantly, but we shouldn't rule it out if the situation changes. I'd have been all for a few more options "In, Leave now, Potentially Leave later"
To be fair to the Brexit argument what they are primarily arguing is fairly certain. If we are out we wont be dictated to by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. All other Brexit arguments, and all aerguments for remain are all based on guesswork. Will be we better off in or out. Frankly nobody knows for absolute certain, we just have different preferred guesses and vested interests,
I might be totally wrong here, but aren't all of the EU beaurocrats elected by someone? To say we need to get away from unelected decision makers whilst we still have the House of Lords (which I fully support - they provide a good set of balances) and civil servants, seems a bit bizarre.
Even if ithat is the premise; what problem are we trying to solve? That we don't get our own way often enough?
The thing is, we can always stay in now and then leave in the future if no reform happens or something else happens we dislike. If we leave now, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get back in, and we'll be given absolutely no special treament. So leaving now because of something that may/may not happen seems a bit short sighted.
That argument can be easily be spun about for Remain: Why remain in a bureaucracy that is so fundamentally resistant to reform? If we remain now, it'll be a bigger struggle to Leave in future. So remaining now because of the promise of reform that may/may not be achievable seems a bit short sighted. That's assuming that our elected representatives aren't secretly forging ahead with more integration. Cameron's duplicitous Turkey accession debacle and Heseltine's "we will join the euro" car crash LBC interview are good reasons to not trust what they have to say.
Why would it be a bigger struggle to leave later? Because we'd (potentially) be more integrated? I can't see us integrating further or joining the euro.
Besides, should we leave and get through the short term shock, get everything in order, I can't see a good reason at present on why we'd want to rejoin?
Agreed. If we leave, and everything works out, we still have some industry and get all of our trade deals up and running without any overbearing compromises, then there'd be absolutely no reason to join the EU; it clearly isn't needed.
However, I'm not sure the odds of that happening are high enough to gamble with my sons future.
Herzlos wrote: I might be totally wrong here, but aren't all of the EU beaurocrats elected by someone? To say we need to get away from unelected decision makers whilst we still have the House of Lords (which I fully support - they provide a good set of balances) and civil servants, seems a bit bizarre. Even if ithat is the premise; what problem are we trying to solve? That we don't get our own way often enough?
First, I'll state that I agree with you on the Lords somewhat - they're a useful blocking mechanism. However, the recent reforms have reduced their effectiveness in that regard and they seem filled with placemen these days.
From how I understand things, it is the commission he is referring to amongst others and they're not directly elected. They're nominated by EU heads of state and voted in by the MEP's. So there is a deficit there in that we can't vote on, for example, who the EU president is and their manifesto for their term. I'd argue that the Commission and the modern house of lords share many similarities - they're all political appointees.
Herzlos wrote: Why would it be a bigger struggle to leave later? Because we'd (potentially) be more integrated? I can't see us integrating further or joining the euro.
And it's the potentially bit that makes me want to vote Leave. The more integrated we become that harder it is to leave. As mentioned above, there's plenty of characters who want to take us in further.
I agree we don't want to do it constantly, but we shouldn't rule it out if the situation changes. I'd have been all for a few more options "In, Leave now, Potentially Leave later"
From the point of view of people outside the ballot but effected by the outcome anything more than once is 'constantly'. I will apply the argument against the Uk that I used for the Scottish indyref.
- You get one partisan choice of IN or out. Once that is done its final, because if there is to be a second ballot we (those outside the ballot area) want to be balloted.
The French for instance have good reason to be concerned at Brexit. Even if Brexit is good for the UK (let us assume it is); is it good for France? Does it effect France? Most certainly, and possibly very heavily just as iScotland would effect me in London.
We can get away with one Brexit vote, IN or OUT, with sole concern of what is best for the UK.
If we ever demand a second one we are asking for special status within Europe. Aka "Give us what we want or we demand another Indyref."
Brussels will be well within its means and rights to demand that our previous vote is binding.
Perhaps in another fifty years, or if the EU disintigrates by itself then the UK can ask out again.
Please note that just having this ballot has done damage to the EU, in terms of economic uncertainty damage the rest of the voters in the EU have no say over. That is just not fair on them. Yet 'will a Brexit damage the French/German/Italian/Spanish etc etc economy' is just not on the agenda here. We could only rightfully get away with that the once.
From a UK perspective we see this first hand with the constant murmuring of a second Scottish independence referendum, which would damage the English economy yet Englishmen presumably have no ballot over. Therefore it is in the interests of the 90% of Britons who don't vote in Scotland not to allow the other 10% to dictate terms, beyond the single solitary privileged referendum, which has now already happened.
There are already been speculations for London to seceed from the UK, kid you not, goodle it,for reason for London not therefore needing to share its vast wealth with the rest of the UK. This however ias just a culture of 'i'm alright jack' where only the welfare of one subcommunity matters. Where does it end?
godardc wrote: I wish you the best, be it in Europe or on your own !
Well said that man.
But whatever the vote we will still be 21 miles away if you need us, we have t changed the phone number just moved some furniture.
Just watching the Paxo debate on C4. Absolutely terrible. It's like the Jeremy Kyle programme with Celebs, talking heads and ex-politicians. They all want their say no matter how banal. Half of which are bemoaning the tone of debate while shouting across everyone else. Paxo is useless in a group situation, said the actress to the.......
welshhoppo wrote: I think my Facebook has a war going on tonight. Both sides are ripping into each other.
Same. Nothing short of a Facebook-off.
Mind, I'm participating in these because some of the things I'm seeing (such as Turkey's visa-free travel and the notion that we will make new trade agreements) is ludicrous. As an EU member, we can block Turkey as and when we like. As for new trade agreements, we'll have to start from scratch, since all our trade agreements were done through the EU - and we don't have much to offer, what we mostly do now is bargain off the services of other EU countries.
In the last 48 hours this has become a huge thing, it's all my friends and family can talk about. And some people are very passionate about it. Friends I've know for years have had full blown rows about it face to face, because their on different sides. Nobodies ever given this much of a don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n about a general election.
The way I see it the EU is failing. Things are going to get worse in the next couple of years. Expect Greece to be all over the news next month as their next quest to borrow more money from the rest of Europe is due again. The real stupid thing is their borrowing money from the IMF and European central bank not to improve their country, but to repay debts to the IMF and ECB? Work out the logic there.
So do we jump ship now and forge our own way ahead, or wait for it all to fall apart, drag us into recession and then go our own way to try to recover?
My main frustration is the constant calls to listen to the experts. The same ones that did such a bang up job of avoiding the crash in 2008. And have done such a great job since. (I've helped out at the local food back, it's scary how many people need it. We didn't have one 10 years ago)
I've worked in the financial services industry since the early 2000's. I can assure you nobody has a clue what will happen whether we vote in or out.
I've worked in the financial services industry since the early 2000's. I can assure you nobody has a clue what will happen whether we vote in or out.
I expected as much, but m ost pundits have not enough integrity to say this but have to load their comments.
We don't know the outcome financially, but both options have pitfalls. We have to go with what we want.
This vote really is a leap in the dark, the only certainty that brings is stock market chaos. The UK is being urged to vote Remain because it will prevent a market jitter. Ok fair enough, that makes sense from the point of view in Wall St etc. But market jitters happen, they happen after earthquakes or after elections. This is just another one. If the Uk votes Leave the Pound will fall as will the Euro. Some people will panic and lose money, some people will be unlucky when they speculate and try to make a personal profit and lose money. Some people will make a killing. But the sky will not fall in. We will still be here and the markets will normalise over time.
Frankly I dont give a rodents rectum about the stock market jitters, because they don't matter half as much as people think. Markets are fluid, they got up and down like the tide, and suckers and incautious players drown.. Don't vote leave because it might upset my share portfolio doesn't cut it when the issue is whether or not the UK wants to be a part of a European centralised state.. The political ramifications though, they are clear, we are safer out because the EU is progressing into an anti-democratic state, and the UK delegates have long been shown to be outside the de facto power structure despite being a major contributor.
I've worked in the financial services industry since the early 2000's. I can assure you nobody has a clue what will happen whether we vote in or out.
I expected as much, but m ost pundits have not enough integrity to say this but have to load their comments.
That's possibly because 90% of economists and business leaders know that Brexit will be bad. No-one can say exactly how bad, but there isn't any possibility that it will be good. Anyone assuring you they have no clue is just clueless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Didn't the UK have to vote to enter the EU in the first place?
This is the second referendum. No reason why there couldn't be a third.
As for new trade agreements, we'll have to start from scratch, since all our trade agreements were done through the EU - and we don't have much to offer, what we mostly do now is bargain off the services of other EU countries.
Ugh.. I hadn't even thought of that.
What time is this big vote/decision in UTC time? or maybe GMT? (most folks use GMT right? I'm so used to UTC from my time at the undersea cable station).
EDIT... haha Title of thread says what date... 23rd... okay so its about 6:30AM there now right? is it gonna be like a noon thing?
Yup. I'm voting as soon as the polls open so I don't have to worry about missing it.
Will be interesting waking up on Friday. Not going to lie, it is scary considering that this is the first time an EU member, particularly one with the influence that the UK has on it is deciding whether or not to remain a member.
It's not been a particularly interesting campaign on either side and the whole thing feels like a massive let-down with zero concrete plan or ideas on either side for what we will do going forward regardless of the outcome.
None of the mainstream remain groups have any real desire to go into the EU and start reforming or actually getting stuck into a leading role. None of the leave groups have any real plans other than "it will be great, trust us!". And of course, neither side has any real plans about how they will go about things if they lose.
Frozocrone wrote: Yup. I'm voting as soon as the polls open so I don't have to worry about missing it.
Will be interesting waking up on Friday. Not going to lie, it is scary considering that this is the first time an EU member, particularly one with the influence that the UK has on it is deciding whether or not to remain a member.
Pretty fething cool... I'm excited to see what happens... personally I'm rooting for a split. But then again I gotta remind myself that this is affecting real people; and its not just some scenario in Europa Universalis IV.
Have to agree. I find there has been far too much fear mongering and not enough fact sharing, as well as negative campaigning. I don't trust Cameron to get much reforming done. But at least every five years I can try and vote him out of office.
It's not been a particularly interesting campaign on either side and the whole thing feels like a massive let-down with zero concrete plan or ideas on either side for what we will do going forward regardless of the outcome.
None of the mainstream remain groups have any real desire to go into the EU and start reforming or actually getting stuck into a leading role. None of the leave groups have any real plans other than "it will be great, trust us!". And of course, neither side has any real plans about how they will go about things if they lose.
I think just the idea that the vote is happening is kind of exciting to me... the arguments being made from either side are kind of okay, but don't really thrill me... I think partially is that while arguments kind of predict or project what may happen... it isn't concrete... after the vote happens... after all is counted... THEN you see something tangible... a result and then you get to see what happens after that flash point; you get to see the real action/application not just the assessment or theory.
I'm going to be glad when this is over and done with. The talking heads from both sides are abhorrent and the levels of 'little englandness' that have been swamping the news media and facebook are repugnant.
Yeah it will be nice when those interested in British Sovereignty aren't dismissed as racist too. The level of Ad Homien has been ratcheted up to 11 for most of the last month.
Did anyone see Will Self make such remarks to Dreda Say Mitchell on C4 News. I honestly thought she would beat the snot out of him.
notprop wrote: Yeah it will be nice when those interested in British Sovereignty aren't dismissed as racist too.
Well there does seem to be a lot of racists on the leave side if my facebook feed is any guide. I have been able to do some extensive pruning of my 'friends' list though
I'm off to vote in a bit. Taking my own pen in case they rub out the pencil marks. Tin foil hat alert
Anyway, I'm not sure what my strategy is. Normally, I stay up all night and watch the votes come in, but I can't be bothered listening to Paddy Ashdown or Michael Portillo, when they get wheeled out.
The alternative is to have a few drinks and hang around dakka, and wait for the votes, but that gets me into trouble with the mods
I think I'll go to sleep and get up at 6am or something.
Voted. And it was actually a weight off my shoulders. Seriously.
Now all I have to do is stay calm by ignoring the news and social media for the rest of the day.
Mr. Burning wrote: Voted. And it was actually a weight off my shoulders. Seriously. Now all I have to do is stay calm by ignoring the news and social media for the rest of the day.
Indeed. My vote is cast, my burden lifted...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's possibly because 90% of economists and business leaders know that Brexit will be bad. No-one can say exactly how bad, but there isn't any possibility that it will be good. Anyone assuring you they have no clue is just clueless.
Actually, only 14.7% of economists oppose Brexit. Guido Fawkes did some digging and found out that 3,818 economists were polled and 639 responded! Vote Remain were a bit 'spinny' with the figures. But, I don't think 1 in 7 economists oppose brexit would make a very good headline...
Kilkrazy wrote: That's possibly because 90% of economists and business leaders know that Brexit will be bad. No-one can say exactly how bad, but there isn't any possibility that it will be good. Anyone assuring you they have no clue is just clueless.
Actually, only 14.7% of economists oppose Brexit. Guido Fawkes did some digging and found out that 3,818 economists were polled and 639 responded! Vote Remain were a bit 'spinny' with the figures. But, I don't think 1 in 7 economists oppose brexit would make a very good headline...
We don't know what will happen. Some believe that leaving the EU will free us of so much corruption and red tape our economy will revive. Others think we are burning our own house down.
Only someone with a vested political interest in deceiving others will say they are sure either way. Economic prescience is a rare talent, yet too many people insist they have it.
A lot also depends on threats, whether they materialise or not depends on political will of individuals and conflicting political interests. We cant realistically call this. Some people believe that if we leave the EU will try to actively punish us as a warning to others. Some people beleive that if we stay Camerons concessions will be revoked. Some people call the economic outcome on these speculations, which is unsound because both rely on political whim. The most we an do is raise possibilities, and there are so many if we are honest with ourselves that we cannot forsee all ends.
Yet Eldrad is here on every newspaper column telling us exactly what will happen.
Oh, I agree completely, no-one has a clue. And that was the gist of my point - the facts have been so twisted and muddied by the debate with any figure manipulated to fit the narrative...
As an aside, I can't believe that the central banks and various financial institutions as well as our own government would suddenly throw financial responsibility out of the window should we vote Leave. I'd bet money on there being various contingency plans and other measures ready to be put in place with an attempt to smooth out any potential jitters. They didn't predict the 2008 crash, but the referendum has been seen a mile off...
notprop wrote: Yeah it will be nice when those interested in British Sovereignty aren't dismissed as racist too.
Well there does seem to be a lot of racists on the leave side if my facebook feed is any guide. I have been able to do some extensive pruning of my 'friends' list though
I might have to do this too. If so, sadly means I have to leave my regular gaming group for 40k.
Polls show Remain ahead by 6 points if anyone is interested at this point.
I'm begin it to wonder if an Dakkanauts actually have jobs.
Or actually have any interesting in miniatures and wargaming! I've been spending more time in here with the referendum looming than in other sub- forums this last week
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, polls are all over the place:
And in a last hurrah of people being racist donkey-caves, someone that I went to school with just unironically quoted the Rivers of Blood speech in an attempt to sway people to vote leave.
Posh schools are always filled with such lovely, well-adjusted people...
TheMeanDM wrote: Didn't the UK have to vote to enter the EU in the first place?
No, we did not. We have never had a vote to enter.
The British Government entered the UK into what was then the European Economic Community - a free trade zone, not a political union, without consulting the people. In 1976, we had a referendum on whether to Remain in the EEC.
Over the decades, our politicians changed the EEC through several treaties into the European Union - a political union. They did this without asking the consent of the people. This Referendum today, some two and a half decades after the formation of the European Union, is the first the British electorate is being directly consulted on what the EU has become.
It's not fair to characterise Leavers as racists, but there is a stronger element of internationalism among Remainers.
That is practically the definition of the debate. Remainers are happy with closer international relations than Leavers, who want to deal with foreign countries on a more restricted basis.
Well, I've cast my vote. I have to admit, my hand wavered, but I think that was because of the metal strip hidden under the remain box, and the strong magnet that every polling booth pencil has hidden in it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not fair to characterise Leavers as racists, but there is a stronger element of internationalism among Remainers.
That is practically the definition of the debate. Remainers are happy with closer international relations than Leavers, who want to deal with foreign countries on a more restricted basis.
I've just voted to leave, and for me immigration was never the issue. I have no problems with migrants - it's the lack of democratic accountability in the EU which made me vote leave.
I am interested to see the turnout. There 46.5 million people eligible to vote, which is quite a logistical task to manage, however turnout for referendums is often fairly low -- 42%. I think it will be higher today.
Yesterday's private advert in The Metro rightly IMO has drawn plaudits from all sides.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am interested to see the turnout. There 46.5 million people eligible to vote, which is quite a logistical task to manage, however turnout for referendums is often fairly low -- 42%. I think it will be higher today.
Yesterday's private advert in The Metro rightly IMO has drawn plaudits from all sides.
I am afraid some of the UK's problems are due to failure of government. This is a factor that is likely to stay with us within or without the EU.
There is doubt on whether those stats are accurate. The ONS released figures that showed that 257,000 EU nationals came to Britain from Jan to Sept 2015. However 630,000 NI numbers were issued to non EU citizens over the same period. Again more spin.
And, if the 630,000 figure is accurate, then after two years, that is 1.2m then after 4 years, 2.5m and so on. Do we have the infrastructure and ability to cope with those numbers? Failure of government indeed...
And, if the 630,000 figure is accurate, then after two years, that is 1.2m then after 4 years, 2.5m and so on. Do we have the infrastructure and ability to cope with those numbers? Failure of government indeed...
That's all as maybe, and of course it's been a potent argument in this referendum.
But folks are voting on this basis when there's no real evidence the situation will be any different out of the EU. Leave are telling voters there will be more immigration from Pakistan. Andrew Lilico, one of the two leading Leave economists say there will be no real reduction - perhaps a symbolic one.
We can argue the merits of immigration forever and doubtless never agree, perhaps it's just a gut feeling. But what I'm saying is, Out only registers a protest, it won't change the situation.
I understand that people are voting this way - it's a vote against globalisation. But globalisation will roll on, whether we like it or not, however we vote.
And, if the 630,000 figure is accurate, then after two years, that is 1.2m then after 4 years, 2.5m and so on. Do we have the infrastructure and ability to cope with those numbers? Failure of government indeed...
That's all as maybe, and of course it's been a potent argument in this referendum.
But folks are voting on this basis when there's no real evidence the situation will be any different out of the EU. Leave are telling voters there will be more immigration from Pakistan. Andrew Lilico, one of the two leading Leave economists say there will be no real reduction - perhaps a symbolic one.
We can argue the merits of immigration forever and doubtless never agree, perhaps it's just a gut feeling. But what I'm saying is, Out only registers a protest, it won't change the situation.
I understand that people are voting this way - it's a vote against globalisation. But globalisation will roll on, whether we like it or not, however we vote.
Just for the record: immigration in general doesn't concern me. I was trying to highlight the muddiness of the campaign and the questionable figures used on both sides.
I disagree that voting Out registers a protest. I didn't tick the Leave box in order to make a point or stick two fingers up.
The ONS wrote:NINo registrations data are not a good measure of LTIM, but they do provide a valuable source of information to highlight emerging changes in patterns of migration.
The ONS wrote:NINo registrations data are not a good measure of LTIM, but they do provide a valuable source of information to highlight emerging changes in patterns of migration.
Yes, I have read it and I get the point you are trying to make. However:
As the March report set out, one of the main reasons for the divergence between LTIM and NINos is likely to be that LTIM does not (and is not intended to) pick up short-term migration. Consequently, when we add STIM data to LTIM data we can see that there is a much closer parallel between measured immigration and the numbers of NINo registrations, which is shown in figure 2 above.
For those staying less than a year, they still need services, a place to live, maybe medical help if they get in trouble, etc, etc.
Yes, and so NiNos are issued, resulting in a large number of NiNos than the actual number of long term immigrants. Short term immigrants typically do not require much in the way of public services, live in privately rented accommodation and so on.
Also note we are concerned with net migration, and issuance of NiNos tells us nothing about people leaving the country.
I live just across the road from the local polling station and have been disappointed with the attendance so far, very few people turning up compared to a general election or even local council ones
Henley seemed busy this morning, and it's market day so a lot of people will be in town for that. The polling station is in the town hall in the middle of the market place.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I live just across the road from the local polling station and have been disappointed with the attendance so far, very few people turning up compared to a general election or even local council ones
Day's not over yet. Plenty of time to get your vote in.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I live just across the road from the local polling station and have been disappointed with the attendance so far, very few people turning up compared to a general election or even local council ones
Give it time. It's a Thursday and halfway through the working day. It will probably pick up steam after 6pm and have queues forming around 9pm.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, and so NiNos are issued, resulting in a large number of NiNos than the actual number of long term immigrants. Short term immigrants typically do not require much in the way of public services, live in privately rented accommodation and so on.
Aye, but they will need access to services - they'll still need a place to live, may need medical care, etc all creating pressure. Add the extra number of short term migrants to the population increase figures release today, and you're getting close to 750-800,000 new bodies that need accommodating for the year.
Voted a couple of hours ago was fairly busy i hope turn out is high.
leave for me simply because of info from the five pres report, hesiltine's comments, paxman in brussels, and other sources but finally junker saying theres no more reform advailable. Sure it could mean for now but if we are out we wouldnt care about eu reform so it (to me) means thats it. And thats not good enough.
Short term migration is not cumulative. The majority of such people are students and seasons workers, who pay their way in college and accommodation fees and taxes on their earnings. They do not create massive demand for public services.
By the criterion of someone comes to the UK and might need to go to hospital, we should ban all tourists. There's about 36 million of them a year.
Just had an eventful walk down to the polling station at the bottom of the road from where I live...and ended up following a stray dog around for 5 min making sure it got home.
Aye, but they will need access to services - they'll still need a place to live, may need medical care, etc all creating pressure. Add the extra number of short term migrants to the population increase figures release today, and you're getting close to 750-800,000 new bodies that need accommodating for the year.
They benefit us. Figures show that EU people working or studying here contribute more than Brits do. Without them, public services will suffer. Overseas students, too, are vital to our economy.
The figures seem to indicate that out-of-EU migrants don't make a positive contribution, but they still on average contribute more than average Brits - who cost more than they contribute, mainly because the whole economy is in deficit.
Most out of EU migrants are admitted through the points based system introduced in the late 2000s, which pretty much guarantees they have good jobs to do and will be paying taxes.
As well as that there are foreign spouses, who don't get admitted unless the British partner is earning over £18,000 (this may have gone up since I imported my own wife.)
Problems with flooding in the South East of England. Given that is where the bulk of the UK's population lives, I wonder what effect it will have on the vote.
You can be assured that Leave voters will climb mountains and swim rivers to get to the polling station
Just got back from voting 'out'.
There were some older peeps hanging around outside talking about anything but the referendum, inside three people behind the desk, but otherwise i was the only person there when i went (~12 noon)
chose out based on many things - the lack of trust i have in the EU as it stands (negotiating with genocidal despots, breaking their own rules while insisting absolute compliance from others, making threats to coerce a nation, megalomaniac leaders, creation of a new nuclear armed super-state on russias border, hypocritical claims of being an organisation of 'peace' while trying to create an EU military), the fact we get our seat on the World Trade Organisation back again, we get control of our own fishing and import quotas, no more "financial bullets aimed at the heart of london" (thanks, Osbourne!)
My entire life i've been used to being the outsider and alone, it's comfortable for me - so voting out isn't a 'leap in the dark' for me; as i found in the rest of my life, it's a step forward into boundless opportunity, the only limit being ourselves.
I believe that there is a maximum size for any government to be before it becomes a parasite on it's people - Westminster is dangerously close to this size and the EU has past that size and is seeking even more power and control.
I really hope we gtfo, some of my friends are from india; because of the lop-sided migration policy we're left with after EU shenanigans, we're kicking them out if we stay in, despite the linked history.
I too, have ENGAGED IN DEMOCRACY. The power is real. After all the lead up, the ballot paper was disappointingly small, really.
I'm hoping for a last-minute major swing to Remain, and a sufficiently strong result that we can avoid a neverendum situation; however, the chance of that seems relatively low. While playing a friend at 40k this morning, he commented that, "With a referendum, you have to accept the chance of it being a dominant political issue for twenty years afterwards, unless you get a strong result one way."
I'm also hoping to stop rolling 1s on my Terminator armour saves, by the way. That's not happened yet...
The Daily Mail is reporting on a funny conspiracy theory with Brexit voters calling for people to take pens into the voting booths instead of pencil so their votes can't be changed.
I didn't do that...though I admit that there was a pen already in the booth which I used instead of the pencil.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The Daily Mail is reporting on a funny conspiracy theory with Brexit voters calling for people to take pens into the voting booths instead of pencil so their votes can't be changed.
I didn't do that...though I admit that there was a pen already in the booth which I used instead of the pencil.
In unrelated news, stores are reporting a sudden, mysterious shortage of Tippex
Who the feth's got the time and energy to change millions of ballot papers.
Ridiculous. The Daily Fail are always making up this kind of crap.
It's perfectly legal to use a pen if you want. The law requires clerks to supply pencils tied down to the booths with a long enough string to accommodate a left or right hander.
Kilkrazy wrote: Who the feth's got the time and energy to change millions of ballot papers.
Ridiculous. The Daily Fail are always making up this kind of crap.
It's perfectly legal to use a pen if you want. The law requires clerks to supply pencils tied down to the booths with a long enough string to accommodate a left or right hander.
The Daily Mail is not "making it up", they're merely reporting that some Brexit voters on twitter are peddling a silly conspiracy theory. The tone of the article is rather comedic to be honest. The DM is mocking the idea, not supporting it.
Just got back from the polling station. I decided to vote Remain in the end. Even though I see plenty of "potential" in leaving the EU, I think this referendum is really more about the future of the Tory party. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty if we'd be better economically in or out of Europe, but I know for damn sure that the brightest future for Britain is the one without Michael Gove anywhere near government. Really hoping to wake up tomorrow to news of his resignation, and Boris Johnson's career on the rocks. Hopefully, we'll have rid ourselves of Nigel Farage either way.
In the event we do vote to leave (and we do actually leave), I'm not too worried. I think we're absolutely going to experience a few years of recession, and I expect Boris will make a bid for the Tory leadership, which sounds like a disaster. But in the long run (with the overwhelming exception of incompetent leadership aside)... I don't see why it couldn't work
Kilkrazy wrote: Who the feth's got the time and energy to change millions of ballot papers.
Ridiculous. The Daily Fail are always making up this kind of crap.
It's perfectly legal to use a pen if you want. The law requires clerks to supply pencils tied down to the booths with a long enough string to accommodate a left or right hander.
This morning, the BBC reported that 300 counting stations will handle the vote. This afternoon, it's 325 counting stations.
Where did the extra 25 counting stations come from?
The person who has impressed me most in the campaign is the Scottish lady who was in the debate a couple of nights ago.
If it's Leave I think Cameron will fall on his sword, which will trigger a Conservative leadership contest and might possibly lead to a vote of No Confidence and a general election.
If it's Remain I think Johnson and Farage will hang around moping and moaning and causing trouble forever. Especially if it's close.
Kilkrazy wrote: The person who has impressed me most in the campaign is the Scottish lady who was in the debate a couple of nights ago.
If it's Leave I think Cameron will fall on his sword, which will trigger a Conservative leadership contest and might possibly lead to a vote of No Confidence and a general election.
If it's Remain I think Johnson and Farage will hang around moping and moaning and causing trouble forever. Especially if it's close.
UKIP can't lose. They'll do an SNP regardless of the result.
Kilkrazy wrote: The person who has impressed me most in the campaign is the Scottish lady who was in the debate a couple of nights ago.
If it's Leave I think Cameron will fall on his sword, which will trigger a Conservative leadership contest and might possibly lead to a vote of No Confidence and a general election.
If it's Remain I think Johnson and Farage will hang around moping and moaning and causing trouble forever. Especially if it's close.
UKIP can't lose. They'll do an SNP regardless of the result.
Could they be kingmakers in 2020?
Farage has done well for a 'former' political party leader.
The SNP saps votes from Labour, The LIb Dems are still on the floor (although they could regain some ground locally). The Greens are..doing whatever they do.
Also I saw the other day that Corbyn is still set on whipping the party over Trident...Maybe concentrate and on an attack at a vulnerable Tory leadership or something?.......Nah..
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The Daily Mail is reporting on a funny conspiracy theory with Brexit voters calling for people to take pens into the voting booths instead of pencil so their votes can't be changed.
I didn't do that...though I admit that there was a pen already in the booth which I used instead of the pencil.
That would require a massive amount of people to work.
Kilkrazy wrote: The person who has impressed me most in the campaign is the Scottish lady who was in the debate a couple of nights ago.
If it's Leave I think Cameron will fall on his sword, which will trigger a Conservative leadership contest and might possibly lead to a vote of No Confidence and a general election.
If it's Remain I think Johnson and Farage will hang around moping and moaning and causing trouble forever. Especially if it's close.
UKIP can't lose. They'll do an SNP regardless of the result.
Could they be kingmakers in 2020?
Farage has done well for a 'former' political party leader.
The SNP saps votes from Labour, The LIb Dems are still on the floor (although they could regain some ground locally). The Greens are..doing whatever they do.
Also I saw the other day that Corbyn is still set on whipping the party over Trident...Maybe concentrate and on an attack at a vulnerable Tory leadership or something?.......Nah..
I've lived through one referendum before today's so here's what happened up here..
In Scotland, anybody who voted for independence went over to the SNP. Why would you vote for Lib/Lab/Con - parties that supported the Union? The 2015 General Election result bears that out.
And the same principal is at work here. Anybody who votes leave, especially working class voters in traditional Labour heartlands, are unlikely to return to Labour.
UKIP is the only place they can go to. UKIP can't lose, even if it's a remain vote.
I believe that whatever the result, we'll see a watershed in British politics that hasn't been seen since Thatcher took office in '79. I think it will be a once in a generation shift.
Thatcher forced the Labour party to change. Europe will probably change the Conservative party. Expect to see defections to UKIP.
the future political scene is beyond computation, it's so random.
I have no idea what will happen with my default party, Labour. There was a hilarious, chilling documentary on vice, when Corybn said his job was not to exploit government errors (he hardly mentioned when IDS pretended he was resigning due to cruelty to poor people etc). Instead he said his role was "to challenge the party."
I have no idea what will happen with my default party, Labour. There was a hilarious, chilling documentary on vice, when Corybn said his job was not to exploit government errors (he hardly mentioned when IDS pretended he was resigning due to cruelty to poor people etc). Instead he said his role was "to challenge the party."
He meant his own party. Ulp.
Predicting the future is often a waste of time, but IMO this is a likely outcome:
Assume Britain votes Remain.
In 2020 Labour will lose. Why?
Corbyn - Middle England will never buy into that, and the key marginal and 200,000 undecideds will probably stick with the Tories.
Working Class voters - even before the referendum, UKIP was making big gains in Labour's traditional heartlands. Like I said above, UKIP is the only place these voters can go, especially if they voted leave.
Boundary changes - Benefit the Tories.
Scotland - Labour may never win this back, and besides, independence is the fault line in Scottish politics, just as independence from the EU will run through English politics for a few years.
It all adds up to a Labour defeat.
I predict a rise in English nationalism, the Union to end, the Lib Dems to be as useless as ever in 2020, and UKIP to make massive gains, but not enough to make a government on their own. They will exert major influence over a fractured Tory Party.
And Cameron to go, with Osborne's leadership hopes gone with him
Absolutely right but he did challenge the bloody other side, too. He owned Cameron at PMQ whereas Corbyn's main plan seems to be to soothe the opposition into a deep enough sleep that he can suddenly seize the reins of power. :(
Mr. Burning wrote: Could the Conservative party fracture? or is UKIP the perfect home?
I can imagine rebels hanging onto to Tory coattails rather than defect to what is perceived to be the slightly more evil organisation.
Boris et al will stay to pollute an internal power struggle.
Corbyn will mention Trident a few times no matter how the vote goes today.
Corbyn has been severely dented, because the 2 things he cares about the most (getting rid of Trident, and opposing the EU) have seen him abandon his principles with major U-turns.
Mr. Burning wrote: Could the Conservative party fracture? or is UKIP the perfect home?
I can imagine rebels hanging onto to Tory coattails rather than defect to what is perceived to be the slightly more evil organisation.
Boris et al will stay to pollute an internal power struggle.
Corbyn will mention Trident a few times no matter how the vote goes today.
Corbyn has been severely dented, because the 2 things he cares about the most (getting rid of Trident, and opposing the EU) have seen him abandon his principles with major U-turns.
I have said it before, he is a polytechnic rabble rouser, out of his depth on a big stage.
He had ample opportunity to press Cameron on EU reforms and to push his agenda home when Cameron came back like a whipped curr.
Still, I am ignoring news media tonight. I'll try and catch up on the results later this evening.
godardc wrote: You can make your choice with a pencil ? Isn't this very risky ? The vote could be erased and changed.
Not likely, since votes are put in a sealed box and when counting there is an observer watching you. Also pens can be crossed out and votes can be spoiled by adding a X to the other box.
It's a very serious offence to tamper with votes and not worth prison, because if there is evidence found of tampering with votes, then the referendum is invalid and will probably be done again.
It's not really more risky to do it with a pencil than with a pen or a computer.
There will be always fraud, but you can't do it if the risks and time needed to make it happen aren't worth it.
To me, this referendum isn't worth the huge pain trying to cheat on the votes. If it is close, I think they can find another way for both sides to get what they want.
Conspiracy theory, saying that "it's too close to decide to leave" or whatever reason they may pick out of their hat.
Funny that in our own news, the subject suddenly "pops up" like it was a death or life matter. Really, that's just a referendum, we had others in EU before and we know all how it ended: lots of noise for very little effect. I'm frankly expecting the same here. Maybe there will be a political earthquake inside your country, but that's internal matter IMHO.
Like you guys would care about what happen in Belgium government right now. I know, you don't, and that's perfectly understandable.
Computer is more risky because the nature of digital files means it is possible to change a massive number of votes very quickly and completely erase the traces of having done so. It can even be done using algorithms to search and replace votes according to patterns to make the new results look natural.
This isn't possible when you are dealing with millions of bits of paper. It simply is too much work by too many people to be able to keep it secret.
I am not saying that cheating on computers actually happens, only that the inherent nature of digital documentation makes it technically feasible with a very small number of people involved.
Kilkrazy wrote: Computer is more risky because the nature of digital files means it is possible to change a massive number of votes very quickly and completely erase the traces of having done so. It can even be done using algorithms to search and replace votes according to patterns to make the new results look natural.
This isn't possible when you are dealing with millions of bits of paper. It simply is too much work by too many people to be able to keep it secret.
I am not saying that cheating on computers actually happens, only that the inherent nature of digital documentation makes it technically feasible with a very small number of people involved.
I think some sort of failsafe system would be pretty easy to come up with. During voting each individual machine is disconnected from a central server. After voting on each machine is finished, the database on that machine is locked and cannot be changed. The machines are then connected to the central server and their databases transferred. Central server then checks received database against database stored on each individual machine then outputs the final tally and the working out. The individual database tallies are also printed out and then you check them with the final one.
This way you would have to tamper with each voting machine individually as by the time they are all networked the results are locked and cannot be changed on that machine. If you try to change them between the voting machine and the central counting machine then it ends up flagging the database as incorrect. This would mean that you'd need to tamper with a lot of individual machines to influence the result.
Obviously this is just a general idea, I don't know enough about computing to know if it is possible to build such a system that has the desired effect.
My gut instinct says it's going to be a pretty massively in favour vote to remain. I have a feeling that all the "you're a terrible person if you vote leave" facebook, twitter posts etc will significantly sway over the undecideds to vote remain.
Here's an article about a way to falsify the results on a Diebold machine. It requires physical access to the machine, so it's harder to do than a network solution. It's also 10 years old and maybe the modern machines have been upgraded.
Same, but it might be easy enough to program it so that a vote for Remain is changed to Leave or vice versa.
The simpsons clip of Homer trying to vote for Obama springs to mind. Probably not an accurate portrayal but hey if it can be imagined some tech-savvy person could potentially code it.
I've been watching too much Simpsons to try and take my mind of it, especially since it's coming to an end.
Kilkrazy wrote: Computer is more risky because the nature of digital files means it is possible to change a massive number of votes very quickly and completely erase the traces of having done so. It can even be done using algorithms to search and replace votes according to patterns to make the new results look natural.
This isn't possible when you are dealing with millions of bits of paper. It simply is too much work by too many people to be able to keep it secret.
It is possible, it's just a question of balance between risks and gains.
Computer isn't especially more used for electoral fraud. There are still ways to do it, sure, but like for the old pen and paper method , you need a structure specially made for it and the manpower to enable this. The more people are involved, the higher are the risks - especially when you don't have a total control on the inside apparatus at the beginning.
Thinking just one program can do it all and that will work everytime is just thinking hacking is magic. Also, the only machine in use for elections in the whole world isn't the one described and there is human supervision behind. The long myth of the hacked computer with data disappearing without a track on all the machines involved on a country scale is just ridiculous.
The article shows it's possible on a very specific matter ten years ago. I don't find it reasonnable to be afraid of computers just because of that. We use computer for years now in Belgium - we had more trouble with local software failure than actual fraud. And it wasn't that much as well.
