At long last, the phony war is over - the defining issue of Britain's future is upon us.
Should we jump aboard the EU train, which is possibly heading towards a united states of Europe, our should the UK cut loose and forge a new role for ourselves in the wider world?
I think Europe should be reformed to be more democratic and reduce the autocratic power of the commission, etc, and if this happened we should stay in. It's impossible to say if we could affect this issue more by getting out or staying in, since it hasn't been discussed at all.
The concessions that Cameron has negotiated over the past few days are trivial matters intended to give Cameron something to appease Little Britons so he can argue for the Stay In side of the referendum.
Therefore the referendum will not address the major issue, so I see no reason to vote yes or no. It isn't a "don't know" from me so much as a "there is no substantive point that can be resolved". Nonetheless, the future of the country will still be strongly affected by whichever way the vote goes.
Personally, I'm glad this is going to be over one way or another. This had been rumbling on since the 1970s and has been a running sore for the Conservatives since then.
I hope that unlike the Scottish independence referendum, we'll have a mature debate from both sides, on Britain's future. Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
Will be interesting to see how the Conservative party reacts. The cabinet is Pro-EU but the grassroots members positively detest the EU. Could be a civil war in the Tory party.
And what of Boris? IMO, anybody who is hedging their bets on such a major issue was never really a politician of principal. I expect him to fall into line behind Cameron.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Europe should be reformed to be more democratic and reduce the autocratic power of the commission, etc, and if this happened we should stay in. It's impossible to say if we could affect this issue more by getting out or staying in, since it hasn't been discussed at all.
The concessions that Cameron has negotiated over the past few days are trivial matters intended to give Cameron something to appease Little Britons so he can argue for the Stay In side of the referendum.
Therefore the referendum will not address the major issue, so I see no reason to vote yes or no. It isn't a "don't know" from me so much as a "there is no substantive point that can be resolved". Nonetheless, the future of the country will still be strongly affected by whichever way the vote goes.
I think Cameron's 'negotiations' have been a carefully managed PR sham from day one.
As somebody once said, he asked for nothing, and he got half of that!
Kilkrazy, if this is all we can get when we're threatening to leave, we will never change anything if we vote to stay in.
To be honest, I have no idea. There's been so much spin one way or another, politicians saying one thing, newspapers saying another thing, other politicians on the other sides saying a third and fourth thing.
It's like uh... I don't feel genuinely informed enough to make an opinion one way or another. Lots of spin, little information.
The 'Star Trek' future, is one of the things I actually kind of want to hope for and believe in. And a big part of that is working together. So, the idea of leaving an "European Union" feels really bad/sad to me. - It feels like taking steps backwards to a 'darker' world.
And yet, nothing I've ever read has ever shaken away my gut instinct that the EU, the way it is right now, the way it functions, is just a gigantic messes of messes, that's only going to get worse. In which case, maybe it is best for the UK to leave, find itself, work out its own destiny alone. - Maybe the significance of this might spur the EU into fixing itself? - Particularly with the (in my limited, lack of informed opinion) lack of UK(IP?) delegates playing obstruction.
I would lean towards exit but only because I feel money form all meber states is being used to prop up some absurd systems.
I do not think that real change is possible, even within the EU and our current political parties aren't really interested in having a proper debate or fight. Cameron is pro Euro with his watered down 'I tried' deals. Labour would be pro euro without exception and other parties lean that way.
I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.
Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
So pretty much business as usual, then?
I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.
I also don't see the disadvantage to leaving. We can still negotiate a trade deal with anyone in Europe we want, they're not likely to refuse one, we can still keep open borders if we want to, but we can do it without our democracy being potentially undermined.
I can't honestly say I'm that fussed about the nitty gritty details of it. Either way, it's hardly going to change the way of life for most people in the country, so it's a matter of principle rather than gain/loss for me.
I've not made my mind up. I feel that a lot of workers rights are only held in check by Europe, the Conservatives would aid business owners and screw over workers now that unions are so weakened. Trying to make us 'more competitive' after leaving the EU would be their excuse for screwing us over pay and working hours and other conditions. But Europe also choke us with other legislation that seems to serve exploitarive criminals rather than really protect our rights.
The obsession with open borders is an issue too, Merkel and others keep pushing it as well as letting unprocessed migrants flood in instead of insisting that correct process for asylum claims is adhered to, that being that applications are made at the first safe country. Yet thousands are still illegally piling up in Calais that the French and no other European country has processed. Which brings is onto another point, why does the UK find it so hard to renegotiate rules and get bashed for discrimination when the French passed a burka ban and Germany can suspend asylum rules when they like?
Immigration control won't improve if we leave the EU though. The government wants high immigration because it supplies cheap workers and holds down wages. conservatives especially only do things to help business leaders not workers, that's why there's no living wage introduced.
Economically I've not a clue, and the cost of this should be the biggest issue of all. On one side you have doommongers claiming our country will be economically crippled and shunned by the world. On the other is blind faith that we'll be just fine on our own or even much better off. It's all propaganda on both sides and little evidence that convinces.
I don't think Cameron got squat out of these renegotiations, it's all spin. We're only getting a referendum because he promised us one to win votes. This will be the third referendum offered by Cameron that he has then campaigned against. Whatever happened to politicians offering referendums on things they had some vision to change?
I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.
Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU - Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP
And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.
So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.
Compel wrote: To be honest, I have no idea. There's been so much spin one way or another, politicians saying one thing, newspapers saying another thing, other politicians on the other sides saying a third and fourth thing.
It's like uh... I don't feel genuinely informed enough to make an opinion one way or another. Lots of spin, little information.
The 'Star Trek' future, is one of the things I actually kind of want to hope for and believe in. And a big part of that is working together. So, the idea of leaving an "European Union" feels really bad/sad to me. - It feels like taking steps backwards to a 'darker' world.
And yet, nothing I've ever read has ever shaken away my gut instinct that the EU, the way it is right now, the way it functions, is just a gigantic messes of messes, that's only going to get worse. In which case, maybe it is best for the UK to leave, find itself, work out its own destiny alone. - Maybe the significance of this might spur the EU into fixing itself? - Particularly with the (in my limited, lack of informed opinion) lack of UK(IP?) delegates playing obstruction.
Come on, take that fence out of your rear!
On a serious note, it is a big decision, but there's plenty of time to think about it. I'm hoping that somebody comes up with a balanced website that highlights the pros and cons of both sides. We need quality, unbiased material to help people make a decision.
I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any deal we make?
Ketara wrote: I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.
As I said earlier, I'm hoping for a good, clean campaign, because there is a strong case for staying, and a strong case for leaving, but I fear we'll get the establishment types (banks and big business) predicting death of the first born if we leave the EU, and the leave camp will probably hit us with 50 million refugees arriving in Britain if we stay in the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any sea we make?
There is talk that this deal is not even legally binding, and won't be until the referendum result is known. I'm not 100% on that, but that's the music coming out of Brussels from what I can tell.
The likelyhood is you'll take an economic hit for ideological reasons. That's okay, not everything has to be based on economics.
Perhaps you'll come out of that "hit" stronger than before, perhaps not. But you'll no longer be able to blame Brussels for all your problems, so I do wonder who the new whipping boy for your odious press will be. Probably the poor -they're always a good fallback.
From my perspective, a Brexit is a disaster for Ireland. But posters here and elsewhere have made it clear that such considerations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain. (To me, that has been the ugliest part of the debate - plenty of commenters of the Guardian absolutely outraged that "A country like Belgium could have a say on what we, the sixth biggest blah blah in the world, can do!")
Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.
Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
So pretty much business as usual, then?
I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.
I also don't see the disadvantage to leaving. We can still negotiate a trade deal with anyone in Europe we want, they're not likely to refuse one, we can still keep open borders if we want to, but we can do it without our democracy being potentially undermined.
I can't honestly say I'm that fussed about the nitty gritty details of it. Either way, it's hardly going to change the way of life for most people in the country, so it's a matter of principle rather than gain/loss for me.
If Britain leaves, we can get out seat back at the WTO, but I have no idea if that's worth anything
We'll still be in NATO and Interpol if we leave, and I'm pretty sure the ECJ is not part of the EU?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The likelyhood is you'll take an economic hit for ideological reasons. That's okay, not everything has to be based on economics.
Perhaps you'll come out of that "hit" stronger than before, perhaps not. But you'll no longer be able to blame Brussels for all your problems, so I do wonder who the new whipping boy for your odious press will be. Probably the poor -they're always a good fallback.
From my perspective, a Brexit is a disaster for Ireland. But posters here and elsewhere have made it clear that such considerations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain. (To me, that has been the ugliest part of the debate - plenty of commenters of the Guardian absolutely outraged that "A country like Belgium could have a say on what we, the sixth biggest blah blah in the world, can do!")
Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any sea we make?
There is talk that this deal is not even legally binding, and won't be until the referendum result is known. I'm not 100% on that, but that's the music coming out of Brussels from what I can tell.
Which is bloody disgusting and a subversion of democracy. They're going to make all sorts of false promises, dubious 'deals' and will say whatever it takes to get the right result from us. Then turn around months later and revoke everything that they promised us.
If Scots are pissed that Westminster has broken its promises of further devolution and reform, then this will be the exact same situation.
Da Boss wrote: nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.
With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?
Do_I_Not_Like_That: Because you are our biggest trading partners, by far, and whatever happens to your economy will hit ours as well. That, and our trade with you is vital to our economy, and I doubt the EU is going to allow you to trade with it at a favorable rate (nor do I believe it should) compared to what you would get for staying in, which will hit our economy hard.
Separate from that, and often dismissed or forgotten - the Republic/North border is a soft border right now with free movement between it. This is the reason Ireland cannot be in Schengen even though we would like to be.
However, we still have free movement with the rest of the EU. Presumably, if the UK leaves, it will want to firm that border up. That is a huge issue for the peace process, as a soft border was one of the major issues that needed to be hashed out. Otherwise how are you going to control the movement of people into the UK?
And of course, the legislation of the Good Friday Agreement is structured around EU legislation and Human Rights treaties. It is unclear how it would be effected by a Brexit.
Finally, nationalist communities in the North are more comfortable having the EU as an additional oversight on governance given the history of state abuse in the North. There is a real fear that a Brexit could damage the Peace Process and cause a return to violence.
If you do a quick google you can find that lots and lots of Irish politicians, economists and think tanks are really worried at the prospect of a Brexit.
Da Boss wrote: nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.
With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?
Solidarity. I'd prefer if we were not separate nations but part of a federal European superstate, as you know. I believe the slide towards narrow national interests is disastrous for Europe.
Edit to add: Though I am angry at what is going on, I do not dispute that you guys have the right to a democratic vote on it, and it is to Cameron's credit that he is allowing one. However you vote, I think it should be respected.
Da Boss wrote: nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.
With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?
Solidarity. I'd prefer if we were not separate nations but part of a federal European superstate, as you know. I believe the slide towards narrow national interests is disastrous for Europe.
Edit to add: Though I am angry at what is going on, I do not dispute that you guys have the right to a democratic vote on it, and it is to Cameron's credit that he is allowing one. However you vote, I think it should be respected.
So...you're saying that Ireland's economy should be a factor in the British consideration of their EU related future, because their decision will affect Ireland's future and they should be concerned for the people who live there? Apologies if I'm misreading this, I'm just having difficulty understanding what you're getting at.
I'm actually googling those Irish articles you mentioned now. Interesting reading.
Ketara wrote: I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.
Yeah, I think how your actions will effect your allies and neighbours should be a consideration. Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that.
I'm pretty far along the "break down borders!" line of thinking though - I am hoping for a future for Europe where national identities are part of a solid European whole resulting in closer integration and a more stable future, rather than the slide into competing nationalisms and isolation.
Not a popular stance perhaps, but it is my stance.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think how your actions will effect your allies and neighbours should be a consideration. Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that.
I see. How major a factor do you think it should be in British people's minds? Do you think that even if they didn't want to be in Europe, they should stay there for the good of the Irish people?
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.
All these are reasonable for the UK to ask for. benefit tourism is a real problem in the UK because of its internal system, its functionally more honest than a lot of systems in the EU. Why do you think people want to come specifically to the UK. Why are there migrant camps in Calais? France is not a bad place to live.
Second the Uk needs exceptions, France and Germany do not. If the French or Germans don't like it, it doesn't get implemented to begin with, or if implemented its not enforced in those countries. Let me give you an example. Back in 2000 there was a foot and mouth breakout in the UKand France. The EU came down heavily in the UK and the government had to take drastic action. In France the infected cattle were shot, burned and buried on the quiet, with no complaint from the EU. In fact 'le JCB' is another term for foot and mouth in France because cases are quietly buried.
Both systems are effective at stopping the disease, but the massive culls demanded by the EU were only demanded of the UK. This was a major blow to the UK livestock industry which took many years to recover from.
Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU - Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP
Cameron cant fix that, and he knows he cant fix that. But he can opt out of as much of that as possible. Which part-fixes that for the UK.
I doubt anyone could do anything about the internal corruption of the EU. It not in the interest of the people who hold the power to do anything about. National government cant actually order the EU itself to do much, or even apply much pressure. As you say they are corporate and secretive.
And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.
It shouldn't surprise, but its also not a condemnable action. Cameron asked for changes on what he could fix. He has achieved quite a bit actually. It doesn't appear to be much but the perma-opt out from the 'ever increasing union' while remaining in EU is a major concession, and one that federalists are not happy with.
The UK wants to be a full trade partner of the EU from the inside, but to be on the outside with regards to federalism. In fact Cameron's moves could help federalism along bty allowing federalists to cement union while still keeping the Uk in system financially. Non membership of the Euro worked out fine for us, and didnt stop implementation elsewhere. Europe has nothing to fear from the Uk's position.
So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.
Rather naive and impatient. The UK wants a trade partnership, not a federal Europe. Go ahead have your federal Europe, we wont stop you, just leave your whacky laws at the channel. In or out though the reform of clarity in the EU wont happen, and it will only get worse as Europe is bound tighter together. If you think that having us gone will make anything easier you are mistaken, it just means the undemocratic chokehold will progress with less notice.
It should tell you a lot that Camerion is having problems, Merkel backs him, and that should be enough to get things moving. The main opposition to his reforms come from the unelected bureaucrats who want a federal Europe controlled by unelected officials over neutered national puppet governments, and you know this is not tinfoil because these are the real issues you wan't sorted.
Frankly I believe Merkel envies the Uk's position of being able to be half in Europe half out. It will make a lot of difference for us in the longer term.
I think they should think about how being in Europe has lead to a more stable and prosperous relationship between our nations, and how leaving Europe could damage that.
They should reflect on the positive influence Europe had on our historically violent and fraught relationship.
How major a factor? At least as big a factor as something as piddling as Child Benefit for a few thousand people.
And then they should vote. If they still want out, well, that's democracy and we'll all live with the consequences, whatever they are. I have little optimism that this sort of thinking plays in the minds of British voters though, who are pretty nationalistic.
As time has gone on, I've begun to swing round to the POV that I would rather Britain outside of Europe as it is a trojan horse for unregulated finance and neoliberalism and a consistent obstructionist for the goal I want to see achieved (a properly united Europe). So despite my worries for my home country I do wonder and am beginning to believe that it would be better for the Europe I want to see if you guys were on the outside. So you can see how my calculus is not entirely influenced by the circumstances of my home nation, but by the future of the entire Union.
Da Boss wrote: Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.
Since you care so much about Democracy, would you agree that one part of the EU making promises of reform to influence a referendum result, then another part of the EU vetoing those promises after the referendum is distinctly undemocratic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty far along the "break down borders!" line of thinking though - I am hoping for a future for Europe where national identities are part of a solid European whole resulting in closer integration and a more stable future, rather than the slide into competing nationalisms and isolation.
Thats been tried for decades, and its been an abject failure.
There's nothing undemocratic about it - how would you propose that the complex interests of 27 nations are best represented? This is no different to a national government proposing a law and then the national parliament getting to vote on it.
And a big part of the failure has been British obstructionism dude. That's my point.
before you state that I am wrong, let me justify my belief.
Argument 1, the old pease reason:
Before the european union was created, europe was world champions in making war left and right. It had throughout the times been almost ordinary to be to a war or to between european nations in ones life time. To world wars within a short while made the nations belive, that the circle of "you did this to us, so when we grow strong we will do that to you" would be never ending unless a better alternative was set in motion. The very idea was that if to nations was having a big trade, the nations would have something where they meet and discussed things before things got out of hand. Giving diplomacy a extra chance. Secondly if the nations would loose more value then that could be gained (loss of this trade), the very reason for war would be less worthwhile.
So far it have worked. There have been no war between to EU nations yet.And It is almost unthinkeble today.
Argument 2, the lost fear of United EU:
At a long time, EU seemed to take more and more power to itself. Many with good reason begun to fear that the EU they know would work towards a United EU nation.
However at the last EU election, a very strong message was sendt to EU. We kind of like you and all, but we are not going to marry you! So the EU leadership stated, that the vission they had for EU and what the people wanted was to different things. This forced them to realised, that EU should focus more on corperation between nation trade, and less on mingle in each nations way of life.
And at long last. EU have a important principle about forcing the big things. To create something like EU united nation. It would require all nations to be asked acording to their own rules. Do you wish this to happen? If just one nation say NO! it is over. All nation has to agree, or no deal!
When Denmark said no to one of these big changes back in 1992. I belive it was the Mastrid teaty, EU panikked. A new more agreeable plan was made, and the danish people asked one time more, that this time was deamed okay by the people.
So in the end, it is a matter of if you trust your own people in goverment. If yes, this will not become a issue. If no, you would leave them in total power once you leave your european friends.
Argument 3, the good old times is over:
One argument I have heard, is that UK could reinstate the old trade system from before WW2. Alot of nations have a trade agreement with the british empire. (party forced by them being a huge world power). However many of these nations fail to see why they should do this, when they have excelent agreement with EU.
You guys would properly loose alot of trade, and would have to sit down with EU anyway to make a huge deal of treaties in order not to loose important trade, and to avoid higher tax on imported goods.
Argument 4, We would really miss you guys:
EU is a klub of nations. Make no mistake, we really love you guys, please stay!
That being said. EU is not perfect at all. A lot of isues is at hand. Alot of huge discussions becourse we are so different and stand in different situations. However it will only become better if we stick together and help eachother making it better. UK are somethemes annoying with all their questions and issues. However they are so very important to ask. So we all can make sure we get the balance that makes EU a good place to be, and not something dominant, where there is only place for EU and not the nations.
It is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have!
Da Boss wrote: I think they should think about how being in Europe has lead to a more stable and prosperous relationship between our nations, and how leaving Europe could damage that.
They should reflect on the positive influence Europe had on our historically violent and fraught relationship.
How major a factor? At least as big a factor as something as piddling as Child Benefit for a few thousand people.
And then they should vote. If they still want out, well, that's democracy and we'll all live with the consequences, whatever they are. I have little optimism that this sort of thinking plays in the minds of British voters though, who are pretty nationalistic.
As time has gone on, I've begun to swing round to the POV that I would rather Britain outside of Europe as it is a trojan horse for unregulated finance and neoliberalism and a consistent obstructionist for the goal I want to see achieved (a properly united Europe). So despite my worries for my home country I do wonder and am beginning to believe that it would be better for the Europe I want to see if you guys were on the outside. So you can see how my calculus is not entirely influenced by the circumstances of my home nation, but by the future of the entire Union.
I see. I'm not certain I agree with you on everything, but as ever, I respect your viewpoint.
More generally, Andrea Leadsom, the Energy Minister just published a letter about why she's supporting the 'Leave' campaign. Interesting reading.
Da Boss wrote: There's nothing undemocratic about it - how would you propose that the complex interests of 27 nations are best represented? This is no different to a national government proposing a law and then the national parliament getting to vote on it.
And a big part of the failure has been British obstructionism dude. That's my point.
Then shouldn't you be in favour of a Brexit so that British obstruction is removed?
I like that our lawmakers are beholden to a bunch of "unelected judges in Strasbourg", as opposed to callous career politicians, a lynch mob public and a vicious, hate-filled gutter press.
The ECHR was one of the best things to have happened to the poor and vulnerable of this country, and it would be depressing to see things get even worse for them yet again.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: Cheers. As usual I am a bit firey on this topic as it is close to my heart.
The British people I work with are all very anxious, many are rushing to get German citizenship if they can.
I am not surprised. There are many people with substantial interests on the Continent who Brexit will be a blow for(a comment just flashed up on the BBC from one bloke who says he stores his two yachts in Europe, and this might make it difficult for him-somehow I am less than sympathetic to him specifically).
Michael Gove, Justice Secretary, just released his own statement on why he backs to Leave.
Cameron's "negotiations" are nothing more than chicken feed.
I want to leave. Because then I hope the whole thing goes down in pretty flames and explosions before being reborn like a beautiful democratic Pheonix we can be proud of.
Da Boss wrote: There's nothing undemocratic about it - how would you propose that the complex interests of 27 nations are best represented? This is no different to a national government proposing a law and then the national parliament getting to vote on it.
And a big part of the failure has been British obstructionism dude. That's my point.
Then shouldn't you be in favour of a Brexit so that British obstruction is removed?
Read the rest of my posts. I am at best ambivalent about a Brexit, but I'm coming round to thinking it's the best thing for Europe (though not for Ireland or Britain).
Edit to add: Gove is an awful tool. Doesn't surprise me that he's going for Brexit. But then, Osborne is possibly the most hateable man in Europe, and he's pushing to stay in, so....
I thought the whole point of Ireland gaining its independence from Britain was for it to become an independent nation that makes its own decisions. In other words, Irelands does what's best for Ireland, and Britain does what is best for Britain.
Now the Irish are saying they need Britain in the EU or it'll damage Ireland? What kind of Irish independence is that
I heard the same nonsense during the Scottish referendum campaign that Scotland leaving the UK would be bad for the peace process in NI, and now I'm hearing it again with regard to BREXIT.
With all due respect, is there any political event on Earth that's good for the peace process in Ireland?
If somebody came out and said that China choosing a new Chairman of the Chinese Communist party was bad for Ireland, it wouldn't be anymore sillier than some of the nonsense being spouted by the IN campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Cameron's "negotiations" are nothing more than chicken feed.
I want to leave. Because then I hope the whole thing goes down in pretty flames and explosions before being reborn like a beautiful democratic Pheonix we can be proud of.
If you hope that's going to happen there's a bridge I have for sale
Do_I_Not_Like_That: Quite simply, it is realism. It would be lovely if Ireland was so totally independent that what happened in it's biggest neighbour had no effect, but that is not true.
Your flippant remarks about the Peace Process do not warrant a serious answer. Come back if you want to have an actual discussion about it.
Da Boss wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That: Quite simply, it is realism. It would be lovely if Ireland was so totally independent that what happened in it's biggest neighbour had no effect, but that is not true.
Your flippant remarks about the Peace Process do not warrant a serious answer. Come back if you want to have an actual discussion about it.
To be honest, I don't agree with the notion that leaving the EU will cause the Troubles to reignite in Northern Ireland.
It was more a matter of both sides simply got tired of the violence, and were willing to meet each other half-way for a change. That had far more of an impact in ending the Troubles than a bunch of foreign bureaucrats in Belgium.
I can fully see the stay vote winning. Poeple fear the uncertainty of change and will always defend the status quo. Even if the status quo is being assimilated by an unelected fascist mob.
I just hope voters realise its now or never if its to happen. There will never be another referendum. Assimilation will be complete before another could possibly take place in a generation, and a vote to stay WILL be twisted into a vote of confidence in the European Project to further speed things up.
Dropbear Victim wrote: I can fully see the stay vote winning. Poeple fear the uncertainty of change and will always defend the status quo. Even if the status quo is being assimilated by an unelected fascist mob.
I just hope voters realise its now or never if its to happen. There will never be another referendum. Assimilation will be complete before another could possibly take place in a generation, and a vote to stay WILL be twisted into a vote of confidence in the European Project to further speed things up.
Dropbear Victim wrote: I can fully see the stay vote winning. Poeple fear the uncertainty of change and will always defend the status quo. Even if the status quo is being assimilated by an unelected fascist mob.
I just hope voters realise its now or never if its to happen. There will never be another referendum. Assimilation will be complete before another could possibly take place in a generation, and a vote to stay WILL be twisted into a vote of confidence in the European Project to further speed things up.
Who the feth are you calling fascist?
The european project, Brussells etc.
That you have taken a slight at european officials as a slight against you speaks volumes.
But yes, let the faux-outrage flow. Maybe a mod will hide my post or ban me and you can go back to your cosy bubble attacking the brits the way you recently beatdown those greedy greeks.
Dropbear Victim wrote: I can fully see the stay vote winning. Poeple fear the uncertainty of change and will always defend the status quo. Even if the status quo is being assimilated by an unelected fascist mob.
I just hope voters realise its now or never if its to happen. There will never be another referendum. Assimilation will be complete before another could possibly take place in a generation, and a vote to stay WILL be twisted into a vote of confidence in the European Project to further speed things up.
Who the feth are you calling fascist?
The european project, Brussells etc.
That you have taken a slight at european officials as a slight against you speaks volumes.
But yes, let the faux-outrage flow. Maybe a mod will hide my post or ban me and you can go back to your cosy bubble attacking the brits the way you recently beatdown those greedy greeks.
He's Irish, for a start. And a perfectly nice fellow to boot, I've shared a cuppa with him. He's passionate about Europe as a federal entity, which is his right. No need to draw the battlelines.
Secondly, you may want to examine the use of the word 'facist'. I'm hardly a fan of Europe, but the tag applies to them about as well as 'communist' or 'zionist'.
Da Boss wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That: Quite simply, it is realism. It would be lovely if Ireland was so totally independent that what happened in it's biggest neighbour had no effect, but that is not true.
Your flippant remarks about the Peace Process do not warrant a serious answer. Come back if you want to have an actual discussion about it.
It's not a flippant remark when Ulster Unionist politicians were saying that Scotland leaving the UK would be bad for the peace process.
It's not a flippant remark when an IN supporter highlights the peace process as a reason to vote yes in his column for the Guardian newspaper.
And here's the relevant quote if you don't want to read the whole article:
Brexit would be disastrous for Ireland. The former Irish prime minister John Bruton says it would “undo much of the work of the peace process and create huge questions over borders and labour market access”. There are more than 380,000 Irish citizens living in Britain, who do have a vote in this referendum, and millions of Brits (including me) with Irish ancestry. If you care about Ireland, vote to remain.
So, I've just presented you with black and white evidence that the remain campaign is using the risk to the peace process as an argument to remain in, so remind me again why I'm getting blamed for raising the argument when it's the IN campaign who brought it up?
Dropbear Victim wrote: I can fully see the stay vote winning. Poeple fear the uncertainty of change and will always defend the status quo. Even if the status quo is being assimilated by an unelected fascist mob.
I just hope voters realise its now or never if its to happen. There will never be another referendum. Assimilation will be complete before another could possibly take place in a generation, and a vote to stay WILL be twisted into a vote of confidence in the European Project to further speed things up.
The EU made be many things. But I wouldn't exactly call it a "fascist" organization.
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
The problem is that the negotiations and referendum are nothing to do with Britain's place in Europe, and everything to do with the Conservative Party's place in the UK. Cameron wants to shut up the anti-EU wing of the party else they will start to create the same kind of shenanigans they did for John Major in the early 90s. He also wants to reduce UKIP's baneful influence. The Conservatives have a wafer thin majority that was gained off the back of a very limited plurality at the last general election, so anything that damages the party's membership is a serious danger to Cameron and Osborne's chances of staying in power.
This will work if the referendum result is to get out, but that isn't what Cameron wants as we already know he supports staying in. If the result is to stay, it probably won't shut up all of the antis, and it certainly won't shut up UKIP.
Meanwhile, serious issues like EU bureaucracy and democratic deficit are better tackled from within the EU than outside, by cooperating with other members who have similar concerns. If Britain leaves, that opportunity is lost for a generation. If Britain stays, Cameron may have used up so much political capital with his footling negotiations that our influence on the larger matters will have been seriously reduced for a while. Either way, the EU isn't going to go away, so Britain has to continue to deal with it basically as it is constructed now.
So really, this referendum does absolutely nothing useful for anyone, except the antis if we get a vote to leave.
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
I don't think we're vanishing anytime, even if we do end up as part of a greater whole. The British Empire's legacy, followed by its successor speaking the same language, has more or less guaranteed the primacy of English as the global language for the forseeable next few hundred years.
We might well find that if Britain do end up integrating, Europe ends end up more anglicised than they might like, instead of us being continentalised. Da Boss has lamented the lack of British participation in the project, but if we started throwing our weight around in the manner he would like, Germany's dominance might well find itself eroded. We're currently projected to end up the largest of everyone in terms of population in about twenty years time, and GDP tends to correlate reasonably well. Throw it forward half a century, and it is extremely likely we may well be the biggest and economically/militarily strongest power in the EU by a decent margin.
In that scenario, we may well end up in the driving seat of the integrationist train. We could have a Conservative Prime Minister of Europe in sixty years! And so the British Empire rises again.....
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
I don't think we're vanishing anytime, even if we do end up as part of a greater whole. The British Empire's legacy, followed by its successor speaking the same language, has more or less guaranteed the primacy of English as the global language for the forseeable next few hundred years.
We might well find that if Britain do end up integrating, Europe ends end up more anglicised than they might like, instead of us being continentalised. Da Boss has lamented the lack of British participation in the project, but if we started throwing our weight around in the manner he would like, Germany's dominance might well find itself eroded. We're currently projected to end up the largest of everyone in terms of population in about twenty years time, and GDP tends to correlate reasonably well. Throw it forward half a century, and it is extremely likely we may well be the biggest and economically/militarily strongest power in the EU by a decent margin.
In that scenario, we may well end up in the driving seat of the integrationist train. We could have a Conservative Prime Minister of Europe in sixty years! And so the British Empire rises again.....
The idea of the French being forced to take afternoon tea has a certain appeal to it.
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
I don't think we're vanishing anytime, even if we do end up as part of a greater whole. The British Empire's legacy, followed by its successor speaking the same language, has more or less guaranteed the primacy of English as the global language for the forseeable next few hundred years.
We might well find that if Britain do end up integrating, Europe ends end up more anglicised than they might like, instead of us being continentalised. Da Boss has lamented the lack of British participation in the project, but if we started throwing our weight around in the manner he would like, Germany's dominance might well find itself eroded. We're currently projected to end up the largest of everyone in terms of population in about twenty years time, and GDP tends to correlate reasonably well. Throw it forward half a century, and it is extremely likely we may well be the biggest and economically/militarily strongest power in the EU by a decent margin.
In that scenario, we may well end up in the driving seat of the integrationist train. We could have a Conservative Prime Minister of Europe in sixty years! And so the British Empire rises again.....
Ketara, I've also seen those population projections for the UK in 50 years time, and we're projected to have a population of 100 million plus or something.
I do wonder how our small island is going to cope...
The problem is that the negotiations and referendum are nothing to do with Britain's place in Europe, and everything to do with the Conservative Party's place in the UK. Cameron wants to shut up the anti-EU wing of the party else they will start to create the same kind of shenanigans they did for John Major in the early 90s. He also wants to reduce UKIP's baneful influence. The Conservatives have a wafer thin majority that was gained off the back of a very limited plurality at the last general election, so anything that damages the party's membership is a serious danger to Cameron and Osborne's chances of staying in power.
This will work if the referendum result is to get out, but that isn't what Cameron wants as we already know he supports staying in. If the result is to stay, it probably won't shut up all of the antis, and it certainly won't shut up UKIP.
Meanwhile, serious issues like EU bureaucracy and democratic deficit are better tackled from within the EU than outside, by cooperating with other members who have similar concerns. If Britain leaves, that opportunity is lost for a generation. If Britain stays, Cameron may have used up so much political capital with his footling negotiations that our influence on the larger matters will have been seriously reduced for a while. Either way, the EU isn't going to go away, so Britain has to continue to deal with it basically as it is constructed now.
So really, this referendum does absolutely nothing useful for anyone, except the antis if we get a vote to leave.
I disagree. I think the more extreme wing of the Tories defected to UKIP ages ago.
But as you correctly point out, even an IN vote won't help the Tories. If the Scottish referendum is anything to go by, IN needs to win by at least 60% to put the issue to bed for good. Look at how the SNP swept up at last May's general election despite losing the referendum.
If IN only win the vote by 50 something per cent, then I can see UKIP seriously damaging the Tories at the next general election, and the next Tory leader will likely be a Euro-Sceptic, as the Tory grassroots will rebel.
IN need to win big or the Europe issue will fester for years.
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
I don't think we're vanishing anytime, even if we do end up as part of a greater whole. The British Empire's legacy, followed by its successor speaking the same language, has more or less guaranteed the primacy of English as the global language for the forseeable next few hundred years.
We might well find that if Britain do end up integrating, Europe ends end up more anglicised than they might like, instead of us being continentalised. Da Boss has lamented the lack of British participation in the project, but if we started throwing our weight around in the manner he would like, Germany's dominance might well find itself eroded. We're currently projected to end up the largest of everyone in terms of population in about twenty years time, and GDP tends to correlate reasonably well. Throw it forward half a century, and it is extremely likely we may well be the biggest and economically/militarily strongest power in the EU by a decent margin.
In that scenario, we may well end up in the driving seat of the integrationist train. We could have a Conservative Prime Minister of Europe in sixty years! And so the British Empire rises again.....
Ketara, I've also seen those population projections for the UK in 50 years time, and we're projected to have a population of 100 million plus or something.
I do wonder how our small island is going to cope...
.
The country actually has plenty of room. Everyone just happens to be concentrated in the South East. If Germany/China declines in line with predictions, I would expect manufacturing to gradually begin to revive in Britain. In that scenario, the 'Workshop of the world' may well make a comeback if the population is there, and the rents are cheap enough in the Midlands. It would require some extremely careful economic nurturing, but it's far from impossible.
On another note, I'd like to encourage as many dakka members as possible to really get involved with the referendum, regardless of how you're going to vote.
The Scottish referendum was a great experience for me, writing letters to newspapers, handing out leaflets, going to town hall meetings and debates etc etc
I know people have work/family commitments, but if you can get involved with a campaign group, you'll enjoy it and British democracy will get a welcome boost.
As for the rest, I certainly hope not. As an American, the last thing I want to see is a trusted ally, the heart and soul of the English speaking world, the ancestral homeland of our Founding Fathers, and major inspiration for our American system, pass into the mists of history.
I don't think we're vanishing anytime, even if we do end up as part of a greater whole. The British Empire's legacy, followed by its successor speaking the same language, has more or less guaranteed the primacy of English as the global language for the forseeable next few hundred years.
We might well find that if Britain do end up integrating, Europe ends end up more anglicised than they might like, instead of us being continentalised. Da Boss has lamented the lack of British participation in the project, but if we started throwing our weight around in the manner he would like, Germany's dominance might well find itself eroded. We're currently projected to end up the largest of everyone in terms of population in about twenty years time, and GDP tends to correlate reasonably well. Throw it forward half a century, and it is extremely likely we may well be the biggest and economically/militarily strongest power in the EU by a decent margin.
In that scenario, we may well end up in the driving seat of the integrationist train. We could have a Conservative Prime Minister of Europe in sixty years! And so the British Empire rises again.....
Ketara, I've also seen those population projections for the UK in 50 years time, and we're projected to have a population of 100 million plus or something.
I do wonder how our small island is going to cope...
.
The country actually has plenty of room. Everyone just happens to be concentrated in the South East. If Germany/China declines in line with predictions, I would expect manufacturing to gradually begin to revive in Britain. In that scenario, the 'Workshop of the world' may well make a comeback if the population is there, and the rents are cheap enough in the Midlands. It would require some extremely careful economic nurturing, but it's far from impossible.
I was under the impression that the tech industry was the big thing in Britain nowadays. I know that the U.S. DoD has big contracts with firms that originated, or is based, in the United Kingdom.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On another note, I'd like to encourage as many dakka members as possible to really get involved with the referendum, regardless of how you're going to vote.
The Scottish referendum was a great experience for me, writing letters to newspapers, handing out leaflets, going to town hall meetings and debates etc etc
I know people have work/family commitments, but if you can get involved with a campaign group, you'll enjoy it and British democracy will get a welcome boost.
Agreed, everyone should vote and should be involved. This is a really big even that could change our country for hundreds of years. I'm talking Henry VIII wants a divorce kind of level.
One of the things that I've been pondering about this. The UK politics being the way it is, particularly the Conservative Party's politics being the way it is too.
It seems to me that, politically, overall, it would be in Cameron's best interests to, just, well... Be honest and up-front.
I know, I know, politicians, honesty, up-frontness... Politicians, am I mad?
Well, probably. But let me think this through. Cameron personally believes the UK should stay in the EU, ok, sure, fair enough, he's allowed to believe that. But there is a national interest and will (of some percentage), to do otherwise. There's some percentage of will in the Conservative party to do otherwise.
It seems that spinless facts, really would be in his interest. Going, "ok, yeah, I believe this and this is the reason. But there are these other arguments and these projections that say otherwise."
That way, the party can't be legitimately annoyed, because facts and he's giving their point of view too. He's stating his own opinion, therefore he's doing the whole 'leading' thing and the people are informed, which is supposed to be good thing but rarely ever happens.
Do_I_Not_Like_That: The fact is both Scotland's separation AND brexit really DO have implications for the Peace Process. Everything is connected and nothing happens in a vacuum. I think it's okay for people to bring in relevant facts to make their arguments - it makes more sense than ignoring said facts.
I'm going to try my best to behave and not be too angry in this thread, but Europe is a subject I am very passionate about so please forgive me for being a bit hotheaded the odd time here.
I took umbrage at your suggestion that the Peace Process is irrelevant to the discussion - it is relevant, as are many other things. How relevant? Well, that's definitely up for debate. But I reckon Europe had a fair role to play as a mediator and a neutral forum for the process, and that is a comfort to a lot of Nationalists who have pretty decent reasons to distrust the British government.
Anyhow. Like I said, I'm glad the referendum is happening, but I do not want Europe twisted and broken by the process. I hope it can happen, the result is respected, and both the UK and the EU can continue with a minimum of disruption. But I fear that this is not a likely outcome.
It is the one thing I give Cameron a fair bit of credit for - he didn't have to allow this, or the Scottish referendum, and he's made a rod for his own back in doing so. But he still did it. Much as I dislike the man and his politics, he's a democrat in that respect.
Like the last two referenda he 'allowed' it to desperately win support and votes, he doesn't even want this, but was prepared to chance it to get into power. It's not about being democratic, it wouldn't be offered if he didn't feel he had to. Now he has to try his best to fight to stop the referendum going against him.
Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
So pretty much business as usual, then?
I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.
Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.
I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.
Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
So pretty much business as usual, then?
I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.
Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.
I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.
Like you, I believe in Scottish independence, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom why the SNP want to regain our sovereignty from Westminster, only for it to then be handed over to Brussels.
I'd like all the facts before making my decision. Proper facts, not those that are distorted or twisted for the benefit of the side making that point.
One thing that I do have an issue somewhat with, is that the UK is a major contributor to EU funds, yet has the same voting power as any other country. From what I've heard, Cameron wanted to stop giving child benefits to immigrants who have children living abroad, Poland abruptly stopped that.
Now I understand why Poland stopped that. But I think the UK should have more of a say where its money goes (on the flip side, we have the second largest debt of any country after the USA).
Da Boss wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That: The fact is both Scotland's separation AND brexit really DO have implications for the Peace Process. Everything is connected and nothing happens in a vacuum. I think it's okay for people to bring in relevant facts to make their arguments - it makes more sense than ignoring said facts.
I'm going to try my best to behave and not be too angry in this thread, but Europe is a subject I am very passionate about so please forgive me for being a bit hotheaded the odd time here.
I took umbrage at your suggestion that the Peace Process is irrelevant to the discussion - it is relevant, as are many other things. How relevant? Well, that's definitely up for debate. But I reckon Europe had a fair role to play as a mediator and a neutral forum for the process, and that is a comfort to a lot of Nationalists who have pretty decent reasons to distrust the British government.
Anyhow. Like I said, I'm glad the referendum is happening, but I do not want Europe twisted and broken by the process. I hope it can happen, the result is respected, and both the UK and the EU can continue with a minimum of disruption. But I fear that this is not a likely outcome.
It is the one thing I give Cameron a fair bit of credit for - he didn't have to allow this, or the Scottish referendum, and he's made a rod for his own back in doing so. But he still did it. Much as I dislike the man and his politics, he's a democrat in that respect.
I apologise if I were disrespectful towards the peace process. The deaths of all those people over the years was a tragedy, and hopefully, the Republic and the North will never have to suffer that level of violence ever again.
But the point that I was trying to make was this: Ireland's problems between Catholics and Protestants occurred long before the European Union was invented, so IMO, I don't believe Britain's exit from the EU should be a factor as far as the peace process is concerned.
Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.
So pretty much business as usual, then?
I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.
Here's the thing though - much of all that telling of what to do would still apply after we'd left, because it comes either via the ECHR which is not actually the same thing as the EU(and the referendum is on whether to leave that or not, not on leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe), or it's part of EU regulations which you have to comply with in order to trade with the continent anyway(because practically we'd have to negotiate EFTA membership if we left the EU like Norway have, and every concession we extract would have a cost). That's not necessarily an argument to stay in of course, but a lot of folk seem to have fairly unrealistic expectations of what leaving the EU would actually mean for the level of involvement of "Brussels bureaucrats" in UK affairs.
Honestly, I'm pretty ambivalent about the EU these days. I like the idea, and I think that with the appropriate reforms(by which I chiefly mean making institutions more democratic, not stamping our feet like a nation-sized toddler until we get special treatment in the fashion of our current pig-fondling PM) it could have a bright future - the problem is I can no longer quite make myself believe those reforms are forthcoming. I certainly don't have as little faith in EU reform as I do in the prospect of reforming the creaking, festering, undemocratic pseudo-democracy that is the British state, but the response to the '08 financial collapse and especially the treatment of Greece recently really drove home just how deeply the claws of international corporate finance have sunk into the EU's policymaking bodies.
I'll probably end up voting "In" for two reasons - 1; the higher the In vote in Scotland in the event the UK(ie England) votes Out, the more chance of another indyref for us in the next few years, and 2; given the choice between a shambolic British state overseen by an EU co opted by but not yet entirely ruined by corporate interests, and a shambolic British state entirely under the thrall of the self-serving, regressive, undemocratic elements that fairly fester within it even with the EU to help hold them in check, I prefer the lesser of the two evils.
Like you, I believe in Scottish independence, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom why the SNP want to regain our sovereignty from Westminster, only for it to then be handed over to Brussels.
Well, because the two aren't really equivalent in terms of relative effect on sovereignty. The UK retains control of defence policy, energy policy, industrial policy, employment law, and a whole swathe of other lawmaking competences which Scottish independence would grant us control of and which membership of the EU would not significantly curtail. Also, I don't know about the party leadership, but the sense I get through friends of the actual membership is that a lot of them support the EU on a fairly conditional basis, which means functionally the official party policy is also conditional given how powerful their collective vote is at the party conference. I don't know that the idea of a federal Europe would be as popular with the SNP as the present assumption of "stay in and tinker with it a bit" is.
EDIT: Besides which, there would be nothing to stop us having an EU referendum of our own a few years after indy if public opinion shifted - we'll be a dab hand at them by then
Do_I_Not_Like_That: I am absolutely loath to drag this off topic with too much Peace Process stuff, but I feel I need to respond to you.
You say that the problems were pre-EU. That is definitely true. But the *solution* to those problems involved the EU as a key player. The legal structures and just the whole process involved it. So whether you think it *should* or not, it just DOES have something to do with a Brexit. How much is unclear, but quite simply it is worth considering when considering a Brexit, same as any factor.
Not saying people have to vote In for the sake of Norn Iron, but dismissing it out of hand as a factor is not really sensible either.
That's pretty much my last word on it!
I agree with everyone who is unhappy with the democratic deficit in Brussels, and the behaviour of the banking elites during the crisis. Trichet told our government that a "bomb would go off in Dublin" if we even considered burning senior bondholders, causing the government to go back on it's manifesto pledge to do so and clear some of the debt they'd accrued off the public books.
The way the private banking system was bailed out with public money is disgusting, and the ECB is complicit in that. It also suits the agendas of the Centre Right parties who are in control across most of Europe, and it suits them too to have Greece fail. So I'm angry as hell about that.
Cameron's reforms do nothing about those problems and arguably make the problem of lax financial regulation even worse, while cutting yet more benefits to workers across the EU and making their lives harder while the super rich capitalist class are growing ever richer. Is it really the best he had on offer?
Da Boss wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That: I am absolutely loath to drag this off topic with too much Peace Process stuff, but I feel I need to respond to you.
You say that the problems were pre-EU. That is definitely true. But the *solution* to those problems involved the EU as a key player. The legal structures and just the whole process involved it. So whether you think it *should* or not, it just DOES have something to do with a Brexit. How much is unclear, but quite simply it is worth considering when considering a Brexit, same as any factor.
Not saying people have to vote In for the sake of Norn Iron, but dismissing it out of hand as a factor is not really sensible either.
That's pretty much my last word on it!
I agree with everyone who is unhappy with the democratic deficit in Brussels, and the behaviour of the banking elites during the crisis. Trichet told our government that a "bomb would go off in Dublin" if we even considered burning senior bondholders, causing the government to go back on it's manifesto pledge to do so and clear some of the debt they'd accrued off the public books.
The way the private banking system was bailed out with public money is disgusting, and the ECB is complicit in that. It also suits the agendas of the Centre Right parties who are in control across most of Europe, and it suits them too to have Greece fail. So I'm angry as hell about that.
Cameron's reforms do nothing about those problems and arguably make the problem of lax financial regulation even worse, while cutting yet more benefits to workers across the EU and making their lives harder while the super rich capitalist class are growing ever richer. Is it really the best he had on offer?
I don't want to take this OT either, but has it occurred to you that if Britain leaves the EU, it could be the catalyst for a united Ireland to form, and be in the EU? I don't know if you're for or against a united Ireland, but that could be one consequence.
Am I correct in saying that if the UK pulls out of the EU, there is a clause in the Good Friday agreement for a referendum on Irish unification?
And finally, you're no doubt aware that the battle for YES or NO will be won or lost in England, by the sheer size of its population in relation to the rest of the UK. That's not England's fault, but I doubt if the votes of Wales, Scotland, or NI, will make that much of a difference.
Hrmph. I do not want a united Ireland against the wishes of a sizable portion of the population of Northern Ireland. I don't see it happening for a few more generations, and even then I think the european context would be essential for this.
Not sure on the GFA clause - I don't think so but I'm not certain.
As for English votes, well of course. Like everything in the UK, England holds the power.
I wonder if anything would change after a Brexit. The UK is not part of Schengen nor the Euro, so no changes there. I doubt anyone wants to upset trade. Free movement for EU and UK citizens as it stands now could be a problem, but nothing some political bargaining wouldn't solve.
However as our government has fethed up our energy policy, perhaps we need someone else to take it over.
The objectives don't sound too different to what we have already been doing. For example, for decades we've imported French electricity.
The problem (if that's how one views it), is that it's yet another piece of power clawed away by the EU. It won't be returned once it's surrendered.
For all this talk of how we get to explicitly opt out of 'ever closer Union', I don't believe it for a minute. Primarily, because they never call it that anyway. It's always a 'logical extension' or 'corollary' of 'existing powers' or somesuch. That process will not cease if we choose to stay.
I've been doing some in-depth reading into how Cameron and Osborne approached the negotiations.
Cameron's strategy was to announce ahead of the negotiations that he would campaign for an IN vote, regardless, and when Cameron arrived in Brussels on Thursday, he made it perfectly clear he wanted a deal done by Friday...
Talk about sabotaging your own bargaining position
Insiders say that Osborne wasn't really sure what he wanted from the EU for Britain, which should come as no surprise to anybody
And these are the people who make the big calls. God help us.
I think with the rest of Europe having such awesome, flavorful food, they should keep your bland food separate. Why would they want the average of their food quality to plummet?
...kidding. do whatcha want. Unless war were declared.
It is extremely frustratung that rather than pushing for reforms to the "democratic" processes of the EU to make things freer, fairer and more accountable; things that would benefit everyone and perhaps even allow the UK a better say in the future of the EU and its place in it (assuming we don't keep on sending oxygen wasters as our MEP's...), we got a few pointless plattitudes that don't actually amount to a whole heap of beans and are aimed at placating Daily Mail readers...
I support a united Europe, but one which is built by the people, for the people. One which the democratic processes are transparent, open to question and discussion.
Cameran's demands got none of that, nor do I see the EU moving in even remotely that direction; in fact quite the opposite!
I am very conflicted on voting to stay or leave. Domestically, staying may help slow down the Conservative drive to return the UK to a fifedom amd the Labour drive to... well... do the same but with more smarm... but it may also mire us forever in a rapidly deepening quagmire of European Union closed door, untracable amd unaccountable rulership.
You don't even have to exaggerate the case on this to justifying leaving to the vast majority of "average" voters. You just need to present that we are paying benefits for nonresident noncitizens and that Poland is blocking correcting that and they will vote in droves to leave.
The IN campaign will scaremonger as all they have to present is a hope for change and the status quo. It's all about business not wanting the hassle of change and nothing to do with the benefit of the people.
I've always been for a seperate UK in the EU but I won't support the notion after the shenanigans of the last few months and years of interference and unnecessary interfering and I think jumping ship is the only shock the EU might get to sort it's act out.
You'll struggle to find many folk up here who'll be terrified by that prospectus, given it's pretty much the same as the policies supported by all the main parties here bar the Tories(who consistently attract 12-16% of the vote, though they might go a couple of points higher this year by stealing some of the Orange Labour block with their explicit and vehement Unionism-based campaigning). Christ the Scottish Government have been one of the main advocates for the Interconnector scheme, it would be fantastic for us as it would let us sell renewables energy capacity to the continent. And further; implementing policy within an EU framework, even a fairly restrictive framework, is still more sovereignty than we have now in that area, ie none at all.
You have to remember, things may be a dead-heat down south with the Out vote creeping up as time goes on, but up here polling consistently shows a 2/3 majority for staying in(and importantly, a straight majority for staying in on the raw numbers AND the intention to vote-filtered figures, in both face-to-face/telephone and online samples, ie on current polling even if every single Scottish "don't know" respondent voted Out, In would still win), the EU is not the boogieman for us that it is for England.
reds8n wrote: 23rd of June is right in the middle of Euro 2016, the day after the final group games I think....
Newspaper headlines might almost write themselves.
Also, you know, Glastonbury. Not to mention it overlaps to a non-trivial degree with the election periods for the devolved governments. It's like Cameron wants a really low turnout, which if true is King Kong-sized stupidity, given a lower turnout result will have a higher chance of being influenced by passionate Outers who are almost certain to vote, and events like sport and Glastonbury will disproportionately affect the turnout levels among the young, ie the most favourable demographic for In.
My question is whether an 'oot' vote would trigger another independence referendum here in Scotland. The nats here seem to be quite keen about having another one...
Britain leaves Europe, and loses Scotland in the process. Could happen...
One pretty obvious consequence of a Brexit would be the move of the banks out of the City and the country. Language ties to the States are not that important anymore, to be able to work from within the EU is much more important, even if it comes with a slight raise in corporate tax.
What percentage of the overall tax household of the UK is generated in the City?
Overall, everyone agrees that economically, the Brexit would be pretty tough on the UK. Pretty much all of their economic growth in the last 30 years can be attributed to having most of the benefits of the EU without the deeper cooperation, and being the bridgehead between the States and the US. Once TTIP comes over us (heaven forbid), a non-EUUK will have a tough time.
I share all of the concerns of the democratic deficits of the EU, but in all seriousness, the UK debate, just as the refugee debate in Germany, is an angst-driven debate of a middle-class (perceivedly) losing socio-economic stability due to decisions of some far-away elite, and blaming the socially weakest. Instead of looking very closely at the local elites and their own behaviour (consumption, and especially loan-based consumption).
SNP are still demanding another referendum for independence thinking leaving the EU should trigger one. So much for democracy, keep demanding massive historic reshaping referendums until you get the result you want. You don't call referenda like this often because of the instability it causes and the fact that once a decision has been made it doesn't respect the result to call another straight away. Scotland has to wait at least ten-twenty years before its a reasonable request to push this again.
Similarly what ver the result of the EU referendum, the losing side just have to put up with it, it can't be raised again for 30-40 years.
Howard A Treesong wrote: SNP are still demanding another referendum for independence thinking leaving the EU should trigger one. So much for democracy, keep demanding massive historic reshaping referendums until you get the result you want. You don't call referenda like this often because of the instability it causes and the fact that once a decision has been made it doesn't respect the result to call another straight away. Scotland has to wait at least ten-twenty years before its a reasonable request to push this again.
Similarly what ver the result of the EU referendum, the losing side just have to put up with it, it can't be raised again for 30-40 years.
This is incorrect on multiple levels.
First, because the SNP are "demanding" nothing. They stated after the referendum result and continue to state now that there won't be another referendum until people here want one. What they have done is point out that if Scotland votes In by a large margin while England votes Out and takes the rest of us with them, it is possible that such an event could create the demand for another referendum and that if so, the SNP would work to make that happen. Try reading what they actually say rather than whatever hysterical BS the Torygraph or Daily Heil are claiming they said. You will note they are also campaigning for In/Remain, so it's not as if they can be accused of cynically trying to use the EU referendum to further the cause of independence, they're just making their position clear ahead of the Holyrood election.
As for this "30-40 years!", "once in a generation!" rubbish, how you can spout that with a straight face moments after declaring "so much for democracy" would be laughable if it wasn't so desperately unaware. If people want another referendum, and they elect a majority government that has a referendum as policy, then we'll damn well have one whenever we please because that is democracy - the expression of the will of the people at the ballot box, not arbitrarily restricting what people can and cannot vote for based on your political views.
Howard: I'm not sure I agree with that stance. I think it really depends on a variety of factors. For one, Scotland was promised all sorts of things in "The Vow", and it seems to me that the duplicitous political class of England pretty much screwed them over on that - rather than Devo-Max they got EVEL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many of the "The Vow"'s pledges have been fulfilled? If they voted to stay in based on promises that are not delivered, I think voting to leave again is reasonable.
And for a second, if something dramatic changes in the make up of the UK, it can be a decent enough reason for another referendum. I mean, taking your EU idea as an example - the EU suddenly became a totalitarian superstate by popular vote in it's countries, I think it would be reasonable for the British to re-run their referendum. When things change, people may change their minds.
I feel it is the same for Scotland and Brexit.
It's one point where I feel the other leaders in Europe have it completely wrong - they are grumbling about Cameron allowing the referendum. That is bs. The referendum is fair enough if people want one. What they should be considering rather than complaining about people being allowed a say, is why are so many people across Europe so disillusioned with the project? In my view it's because of the behaviour of our ruling "elite" in the past 20 years or so, and people's increasing awareness of their crappiness. They have not adapted to it, and they fear a bit too much democracy.
It's not even been 18 months since the Scottish referendum, it's a bit premature to base a second one on pledges not being met or on the result of the EU referendum. In Wales a lot of people were skeptical about Devolution, it was a very slim majority win, but after a few bumps many have come around to it and are happy with it to the extent that extra powers were voted for. Same with the EU result, it should be given time (years) to settle before using public opinion on it to call another referendum.
Da Boss wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That: The fact is both Scotland's separation AND brexit really DO have implications for the Peace Process. Everything is connected and nothing happens in a vacuum. I think it's okay for people to bring in relevant facts to make their arguments - it makes more sense than ignoring said facts.
I'm going to try my best to behave and not be too angry in this thread, but Europe is a subject I am very passionate about so please forgive me for being a bit hotheaded the odd time here.
I took umbrage at your suggestion that the Peace Process is irrelevant to the discussion - it is relevant, as are many other things. How relevant? Well, that's definitely up for debate. But I reckon Europe had a fair role to play as a mediator and a neutral forum for the process, and that is a comfort to a lot of Nationalists who have pretty decent reasons to distrust the British government.
Anyhow. Like I said, I'm glad the referendum is happening, but I do not want Europe twisted and broken by the process. I hope it can happen, the result is respected, and both the UK and the EU can continue with a minimum of disruption. But I fear that this is not a likely outcome.
It is the one thing I give Cameron a fair bit of credit for - he didn't have to allow this, or the Scottish referendum, and he's made a rod for his own back in doing so. But he still did it. Much as I dislike the man and his politics, he's a democrat in that respect.
I apologise if I were disrespectful towards the peace process. The deaths of all those people over the years was a tragedy, and hopefully, the Republic and the North will never have to suffer that level of violence ever again.
But the point that I was trying to make was this: Ireland's problems between Catholics and Protestants occurred long before the European Union was invented, so IMO, I don't believe Britain's exit from the EU should be a factor as far as the peace process is concerned.
It wont be. If the UK leaves it leaves as a unity, Scottish independence was a threat because a split in the UK will kick off Wales and Northern Ireland for 'freedom' also. Wales will ultimately stay, but the decision could go either way in Northern Ireland.
Now there is talk or at least claim that a vote to leave the EU will trigger a second Scottish indyref and therefore trigger a kick off in Northern Ireland. However those aren't direct consequences and Westminster doesn't have to agree to a second Scottish indyref, and likely wont. This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.
Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU - Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP
And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.
So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.
I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?
All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.
Orlanth wrote: This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.
Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.
Orlanth wrote: This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.
Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.
A UDI in any scenario other than Westminster denying Scotland independence after a democratic vote that way, would lead to SNP members being arrested for attempting to stage a coup. Because that is what it would be. And is why they would never attempt it.
Secondly, this thing about, 'If a party gets elected to the Scottish Parliament with a subsection of their manifesto being "have another indy referendum" it has to be held or democracy is being thwarted' is a load of tosh. Many parties put lots of things in their manifesto which are ignored by them after seizing power, and people vote for parties for many reasons other than a specific clause in a manifesto. Equating a vote for a party with a wholehearted endorsement of every item on their manifesto is plain daft.
A manifesto is a statement of intent. Nothing more, nothing less. If the party gets in and chooses to press for an indy ref, then that's their choice, but it still remains up to the will of the democratic majority of the UK as to whether or not it happens. Under UK law, only Westminster can authorise referendums. What the SNP chooses to campaign for is entirely their department. But they do not have the legal power or right to hold an indy ref, anymore than an elected councillor has the right to enforce an 'Invade Norway' part of their personal manifesto when elected. It's simply not up to them, and the people voting for them are not necessarily supporting every aspect of their manifesto.
If the desire is still there in twenty years time, then no doubt there will be another referendum. But enforcing the timing of it to ensure the smooth running and stability of the country is a fact. You can't have one every five years, or whenever a policy shift happens that the ruling party in Holyrood do not like. You cannot run a country like that, as I have pointed out elsewhere. As for that 'thwarting the will of the democratic majority', well, as I just pointed out, a vote for the SNP does not equate a vote for independence. The two are not interdependently linked. And no country runs on the basis of entirely pure democracy anyway. It's why me and ten of my mates can't all 'democratically decide' not to pay taxes. Or every prisoner can't 'democratically decide' they want to be released. Democracy is grand and all, but the running of the country has always taken precedence up to a point, and always will.
That's all I'll say on another indyref for this thread now, as we're getting off track. Dragging it laboriously backwards:-
Yodhrin wrote:You'll struggle to find many folk up here who'll be terrified by that prospectus, given it's pretty much the same as the policies supported by all the main parties here bar the Tories(who consistently attract 12-16% of the vote, though they might go a couple of points higher this year by stealing some of the Orange Labour block with their explicit and vehement Unionism-based campaigning). Christ the Scottish Government have been one of the main advocates for the Interconnector scheme, it would be fantastic for us as it would let us sell renewables energy capacity to the continent.
I can understand why Scotland might feel an interdependent energy scheme good for them. With Scotland's economy currently in the doldrums, it needs any boost it can get in that regard. And personally? I don't necessarily oppose the idea.
It's just that I know that once energy policy is being run from Brussels, there'll be something else on the agenda. And then something else. The EU never just leaves it as it is and says, 'Right, we've sorted what needs sorting', every time it finishes clawing a new piece of power to itself, it starts targeting another one. It'll be a unified energy policy, then a unified fishing database scheme (because of conservation, etc), then a unified monitoring system for EU waters to monitor the fishermen, then a unified maritime boundary for those fishermen and electric cables/oil pipes, then a unified coastguard system, etcetc.
It's always a question of seizing power by degrees. And that's what's begun to make me weary of the whole thing, and quite cynical. Its neverending push to acquire power and drive towards a federalised system. But because it is never honestly announced that way that to begin with, I don't value or believe this 'exclusion' for Britain from 'Ever Greater Union' one jot.
A UDI in any scenario other than Westminster denying Scotland independence after a democratic vote that way, would lead to SNP members being arrested for attempting to stage a coup. Because that is what it would be. And is why they would never attempt it.
I'm not sure why you bothered posting that as it is blatantly obvious.
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
...
...
I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?
All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.
The time for widespread support of EU reform would have been the run-up to the Maastricht Treaty referenda a few years ago. The polling and results showed a significant amount of popular dissatisfaction with the current EU system and the ongoing proposals. Nothing was done, of course, however there is not reason to suppose all this dissent has gone away.
This gives Britain three choices; to stay in the EU and work for reform from within, to exit the EU and work for reform from outside with the intention of rejoining when it has been achieved, or to leave and stay gone.
If enough people genuinely aren't interested in the overall idea of partnership with Europe on any conceivable terms, then I suppose we should just feth off.
Orlanth wrote: This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.
Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
I agree with most of the post - but why is it only Britain should try and get these reforms - does no one in any posiiton of power in Europe want to stop the gravy train they are a part of....shockingly............ Were we the only chance of EU reform?
All countries get their special needs answered - France most of all - Dual parliment is only because they, the French scream and wail if its even mentioned.
The "all" countries that get their special treatment to my knowledge are Germoney, France and UK. Everyone else gets browbeat into submission.
Orlanth wrote: This is why Sturgeon is threatening a UDI and not a referendum.
Hardly threatening given the context and a UDI will in all likelihood lead to full independence, or at least home rule. Anything otherwise would look distinctly dubious for one of the worlds supposedly leading democracies.
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
Scotland will have another referendum if it wants one. Tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, decade, century, never...
End of argument
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, back OT.
Anybody here good at calculating voting intentions and statistics?
Is the dakka poll enough of a vote to correlate it upon the nation? Yes and No are pretty neck and neck, and as usual, the undecided are keeping people guessing.
Is it the case that an opinion poll needs at least a 1000 votes or something to make it statistically significant?
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.
The polls are almost neck and neck with slight favour to the IN vote. But as the last general election showed, there's been a slight skew to underreporting of conservative votes in recent times. Either voters are shy or they aren't as likely to participate in surveys like YouGov, which is entirely voluntary, meaning they are under reported. Given that the OUT vote is being tarred as the intolerant inward looking one, it could be that such people are less keen to support it publicly. UKIP only have one MP it's easy to forget they got 12% of the votes cast. It's safe to assume most of those would vote OUT. Also I think people are generally more likely to find the motivation to go and vote for a change than to support the status quo, that's why surges in dissatisfied voters coming out causes a change in parliament. A lot of people I've spoken to are either OUT or undecided, like myself. I don't see this strong feeling for staying IN. For all these reasons, it's going to be hard to call unless there's a strong swing one way or the other prior to the vote.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The polls are almost neck and neck with slight favour to the IN vote. But as the last general election showed, there's been a slight skew to underreporting of conservative votes in recent times. Either voters are shy or they aren't as likely to participate in surveys like YouGov, which is entirely voluntary, meaning they are under reported. Given that the OUT vote is being tarred as the intolerant inward looking one, it could be that such people are less keen to support it publicly. UKIP only have one MP it's easy to forget they got 12% of the votes cast. It's safe to assume most of those would vote OUT. Also I think people are generally more likely to find the motivation to go and vote for a change than to support the status quo, that's why surges in dissatisfied voters coming out causes a change in parliament. A lot of people I've spoken to are either OUT or undecided, like myself. I don't see this strong feeling for staying IN. For all these reasons, it's going to be hard to call unless there's a strong swing one way or the other prior to the vote.
I have a sneaky suspicion that this one is going to be a 55-60% in favour of 'OUT'. I'm not certain right now if that would be the best result, and indeed, is more the result of a decade of highanded EU behaviour/dysfunctionality, skewed media reporting, and a general ignorance of the facts, as opposed to anything related to Cameron's spin or recent affairs.
Quite frankly I'm so uninformed on the whole issue I'm not sure where to stand.
I love the idea of an integrated Europe. In practice (again from my very isolated, narrow and ill educated view) it appears to be a giant mass of bureaucracy passing down sweeping edicts that largely seem to favour countries that have more boldly embraced the EU than the UK ever has. There's also so little interest in EU elections and an apathy to the whole process that it's little wonder why this seems to happen. We probably made this bed and now have to wallow in our ignorance.
The deal negotiated by the PM truly means nothing to me. I'm not sure what I want from the EU but it's not some sort of strange list of special exemptions on issues everyone should be tackling. That's a fsilure I feel of the PM to identify what matters to people as a whole but what's done is done.
Also I hope there will be more campaigning from the EU. As much as I appreciate letting folks come to their own decision having experienced the let down that was the entire Scottish Independence campaign (referring to the manner in which both sides capitalised on political interest both during and after the campaign, not referting either way to the result) it would be nice to understand why those in the system value or dislike a British presence. I doubt that will happen in any real meaningful way.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.
Are you kidding?
CAP is a licence for French farming to print money. The French have that pretty well stitched up for evermore. No French leader will dare take on the French farmers.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.
Having two hugely expensive parliment buildings and having to communte between the two of them purely to keep the French happy is a perfect example of where Europe's priorities lie and the lack of will or ability to reform.
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.
End of argument.
Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.
Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.
End of argument.
Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.
Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.
Everytime Scotland and referendum appear in the same sentence, you always threaten a one man invasion of Scotland
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.
I sometimes wonder if you inhabit the same world as the rest of us.
Scotland just had a referendum. The results stand. End of argument.
If the UK leaves the EU there would be valid grounds for another referendum (even if it is called something different and doesn't have the backing of Westminster) which the SNP will all but certainly be interested in pursuing.
End of argument.
Actually not because if the SNP decided to do this the rest of the UK would demand to have a say on any ballot as it effects the whole of the UK.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.
Scotland made a choice, and chose to remain part of the UK. It happened. If the SNP wants out it will be up to the whole of the UK to decide, not 5% of the UK electorate.
Everytime Scotland and referendum appear in the same sentence, you always threaten a one man invasion of Scotland
Why invade? We ship you Buckfast, 'tis a far more effective way of disrupting Scotland.
Also any split would be on Westminster's terms, so the oil map could change and the Shetlands and Orkneys can be offered to remain in the UK if they wished and Holyrood cant do a thing about it.
I sometimes wonder if you inhabit the same world as the rest of us.
With regards to the common fishing policies the EU set up in the 1990's, I believe there was substantial favouritism shown to Spain when our quota was slashed down to a negligible amount, but Spain barely lost anything. Since then, we barely have a fishing industry anymore, whilst Spain currently have 32.5% of the total European quota.
I could go on (there are more), but having pointed the above out, I feel that concerns of 'favouritism' are overplayed most of the time. It does happen, but that sort of thing happens in any form of government, and I don't feel they're any worse than our own in this regard.
There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps people would like to give examples of the sweeping edicts that favour other countries and not the UK.
As you're quoting me I would like to refer you to the start of my post where I point out how ignorant I am on the whole issue. That is my perception of the EU. Informed by bias media, my own ignorant understanding of world events, the general apathy towards MEP elections, as another poster mentioned the need for two parliamentary buildings, inequalutues in the budget, a list of significant scandals including a few dodgy attempts at cover ups - just combines into a general concern that certain EU countries are favoured. It's a general statement that rather inaccurately sums up my own ignorant feelings of concern about another political system that cannot be held accountable.
Maybe the solution is for the UK to leave and campaign for reform from the outside, maybe we should stay and attempt to integrate more whilst leading the charge for reform that benefits everyone. Honestly I don't know.
Kilkrazy wrote: There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?
Do we have to keep paying for the multiple Euro parliments and the Eurocrats unlimited sand unregulated expense accounts outside the EU?
Kilkrazy wrote: There you go, not 'edicts' but points at which our government has failed to negotiate successfully. Will they automatically gain the ability to negotiate better once outside the EU?
Possibly. It takes us from 'competing' within a unified policy to setting our own. Instead of squabbling over a 'common' fishing quota which takes into account everyone's water and interests, we have our own maritime space, within which we set our own quota, for example.
I intend to do a substantial amount of investigation and mini-writeups on various aspects closer to the time in order to make up my own mind on this important issue. Certainly, it's not a decision I plan to make without thorough investigation and consideration.
Compel wrote: Wasn't "Cod wars" a big thing that turned many people against the EU?
I also seem to remember some sort of arguments alleging the EU trying to "scam people out of a full pint."
I think it's that sort of argument and issues that's going to end up driving most peoples public opinion to an out vote.
The Cod Wars were three major disputes over fisheries that took place between 1958 and 1976, though the issues that led to the disputes can be traced back to 1415.
Iceland wasn't always in the right in those disputes. And the only reasons that Iceland is considered the "victor" in all three Cod Wars is because the Royal Navy held back, plus Iceland constantly threatened to leave NATO and remove United States forces off of it's soil. Iceland was strategically important to NATO, being key to the defense of the GIUK Gap during the Cold War. This caused a lot of pressure on the United Kingdom to relent to Iceland's demands in just about every case, much to the detriment of Britain's already declining fisheries.
The European Union didn't even exist in it's current form when the Third Cod War ended in 1976.
EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....
Its stupidity runs deep.
No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.
Maybe "Cod Wars" was the wrong term then? The thought was mostly based on the regular complaints back up home in Scotland from, well, I guess you could call them the 'man in the street' about other countries in the EU (I think Spain is usually called out involving it) being the reason for the increases in prices of their fish and chips!
True or not (I'm somewhat suspicious of this myself, considering I'm now in England and a bag of fish and chips is like a third cheaper compared to back home...), it seems to be a common opinion.
It seems staying in the EU is going to be potentially a hard sell. I think my home town even received some EU (and National Lottery) money for a development project. I believe the phrase best used to describe the result is 'boondoggle.'
jhe90 wrote: EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....
Its stupidity runs deep.
No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.
Indeed - more than a hundred Million punds a year just to please the French.
Cameron should have been addressing this sort of corruption rather the nonsense he has come back with - likely got a nice cushy job in the Eurozone linned up when he finishes his term of office
The biggest problem with eu compliance is that being used against us down the line.
There are a lot of occasions when international interference has been detrimental to the British economy and there are a lot of occasions where international interference was purely to keep britain at a disadvantage internationally - but keeping the eu running is good for business generally which is probably why we supply funds in the quantity we do (and then claim it back for some reason?)
Overall theres a bit too much 'politiking' and 'politricks' on both sides for a coherent decision to be made eigther way with many external interests showing their ugly faces and skew the result/concequences to thier design.
I don't think people are getting the idea that making a united system of states could have a maximum geographical or numerical size without serious dissent among the people slowing the decision making process and rendering it useless.
jhe90 wrote: EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....
Its stupidity runs deep.
No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.
Indeed - more than a hundred Million punds a year just to please the French.
Cameron should have been addressing this sort of corruption rather the nonsense he has come back with - likely got a nice cushy job in the Eurozone linned up when he finishes his term of office
100 million for that!
You could build 5 top of line schools for that....with all latest tech and systems for the digital age.
Total waste of money. One, or the other, choose EU.
I think the money we put into the EU might be a big talking point. If Cameron wasn't eyeing up a EU job for his "retirement", I imagine he could make a lot of people who are unhappy with the dreaded "Austerity Cuts" quite happy if he saved the membership fee instead of cutting important stuff. In my opinion, it's a bit like the aid budget - why are we splurging away all that money when every other part of the government is having to find savings everywhere they can?
But of course, Cameron wants to stay in, hence the charade with the "negotiations", where he asked for nothing and got half of what he asked for.
I'm pro "Out" (as you may have guessed), and I do think that some people who are pro-"Out" are concerned about being labeled as closed-minded or nationalistic or whatever, and are deliberately staying quiet. A bit like in the last election: I didn't hear many people admit to being conservative voters, but they certainly seem to exist.
I do think the debate is going to get very nasty, and I expect we'll get some lovely scarmongering, muck-slinging and probably a few wince-worthy gaffes by the end of it.
The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
Thank you I have read it - and noted that yet again this is all about France and supporting its farmers at the expense of our taxpayers. The rebate was specifically put in due to the vast sums of money received by the French as part of the CAP and which they now want us to pay for.
Every body has special exceptions and deals with the EU - some in the open - others less so.............
Many people see the EU - in particular its institutions, as intrusive, parasitic, unaccountable and anti-democratic even compared to our own parliament which is not exactly well regarded.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
The rebate occurred because the Uk was overcharged in fees by the EEC and got a poor return on investment. Thatcher fixed that.
Again France doesn't have these problems.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
Europe needs to do more reform its agricultural policy particularly with regard to CAP. I think the rebate is pretty stupid but since there is no real pressure to reform the budget from inside the rebate remains a tool for negotiation.
As sad and petty as that may seem that is how the EU works - much like all bureaucracy.
The UK has more opt outs and special exceptions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
If you think the Rebate is fair enough, grand- it forces the French to pay more for the CAP. Perhaps that is fair. So the French get to have the second Parliament. Compromise and fudge is needed in an organisation this size, unfortunately.
What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.
It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: I think the money we put into the EU might be a big talking point. If Cameron wasn't eyeing up a EU job for his "retirement",
Do you have even the remotest evidence to back that up. The EU has never been happy with Cameron. It was Blair who made the sell out moves to get EU official status and hat was mostly to guarantee escape from prosecution.
I imagine he could make a lot of people who are unhappy with the dreaded "Austerity Cuts" quite happy if he saved the membership fee instead of cutting important stuff. In my opinion,
in or out austerity must continue. Gordon Brown fethed up the economy in 2008 he left us with spralling debt that will take thee generations to clear. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't work.
it's a bit like the aid budget - why are we splurging away all that money when every other part of the government is having to find savings everywhere they can?
Officially because its poltically correct to give away in aid. In reality this is where the real Tory gravy train is. I dont like that one either.
But of course, Cameron wants to stay in, hence the charade with the "negotiations", where he asked for nothing and got half of what he asked for.
Even th Guardian not exactly a Tory rag recognises that the concesions Cameron is getting are real.
He is not getting the concessions people on barstools want:
"Hello Mr Cameron, we recognise that we have been embezzling billions in EU funds through our commissions. It was wrong and we will stop."
I'm pro "Out" (as you may have guessed), and I do think that some people who are pro-"Out" are concerned about being labeled as closed-minded or nationalistic or whatever, and are deliberately staying quiet. A bit like in the last election: I didn't hear many people admit to being conservative voters, but they certainly seem to exist..
I am pro-In, but I see what you are saying and decry the labelling. Be proud of being from another European country you are a patriot of that country, be proud of being ethnic you are expressing your cultural divrsity. Be proud of being British and its 'closed minded bigoted Little Britainer'.
I do think the debate is going to get very nasty, and I expect we'll get some lovely scarmongering, muck-slinging and probably a few wince-worthy gaffes by the end of it.
Likely, but when one side says 'scaremongering', it may just be the other side exposing their hogwash and lies.
That being said I don't like Cameron's comments of late. Leave the EU and <insert problem here>. Most of them don't wash.
Our parliament is bad, but its ours. It is made of our elected representatives and existed in some fporm or another for getting on to 800-900 years.
EU is a new invention, its new and in a short time stripped us of !uch of our powers. Very quickly.
Given a few decades our ainciant right to decide own laws will be gone. How long before they demand our military, diplomatic and financial policey to being whole EU on one slate.
Vote yes, and we NEVER leave the EU. We will be absorbed for good or I'll with no way out.
What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.
No one (rational) is making the claim. What the EU does to the UK is legal, The problem is not hat it is heavy handed towards the UK but that it turns a blind eye elsewhere if regulations are ignored.
Let me give you an example. EU directives on Abattoirs.
The UK meat industry had a complaint that DEFRA wee forced to enforce EU restrictions on abattoirs, this as in th late 80's while elsewhere in the EU the legislation was not enforced. Because it was largely unimplemented elsewhere the EU thought thy could 'painlessly' amend the legislation. This meant that new build abattoirs in the Uk had to b part demolished in order to fit the new regulations, with no compensation for either set of changes.
What offended the meat industry most of all as that a lot of the inspectors were Spanish veterinarians hired by DEFRA to oversee the procedure. These veterinarians would issue fins for non compliance on any part of the EU directive. Yet most of the Spanish met industry had completely disregarded that EU directive, and the EU had ignored that they had done so.
It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.
The greivances the UK has over uneven implementation of EU directives is valid and well documented.
Calais migrant camps is a good and crystal clear example of that. Were Calais in the UK the EU would be telling us to process the refugees according to EU law, and the EU courts would be enforcing this, as they have done on immigration cases within the UK of people we didn't want here. Have they, will they, do they make the same demand of France. Of course not. Don't be silly.
Observable reality shows that the UK doesn't get even treatment in the EU. To get anything we need to fight for it, and that depends on the size of the stones of the Prime Minister at the time. Cameron for all his many faults isnt that bad a negotiator. Blair an Thatcher were excellent negotiators, though Blair was entirely concerned with himself and sold out the UK for personal advantage on numerous ocasions. Cameron, Major and Thatcher didn't do that. Brown was 100% useless and was walked all over in Brussels and Washington.
Other major EU economies, plus Benelux don't have to play that game the EU itself ensures those core countries needs are considered regardless of who is in power. The club med economies and Ireland are add ons with little authority. The UK is the odd man out because its a major economy but has no real seat at the able of EU decision making unless it muscles one.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
I am curious. What 'special deals' are there other than the rebate?
I should also note here that I don't feel the rebate to be particularly 'special'. As noted with the budget above, we put in far, far more money than we get back. Telling me that because we negotiated to get a little bit of that large sum back makes us 'special', well.....by that logic, that multiplicity of countries who get back far more than they put in are infinitely more 'special' than us in that regard?
Da Boss wrote: The UK has more opt outs and special exceptions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
If you think the Rebate is fair enough, grand- it forces the French to pay more for the CAP. Perhaps that is fair. So the French get to have the second Parliament. Compromise and fudge is needed in an organisation this size, unfortunately.
What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.
It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.
Please prove the statement rather than using the same rhetoric you proclaim to dislike.
If the French pay most for the CAP then its obviously fine because they get the most benefit, so why do you feel they need to exploit the EU by having 2 parliaments - are you really trying to justify this pathetic state of affairs that to many people is symptomatic of the massive waste and corruption at the heart of the EU institutions. No one other than the French wants this - event the Euro MPs don't want it.
Please explain why the Eurocrats don't have full accountability in their expenses and other matters - again at the direct expense of the EU and importantly (to us at lest) the uk taxpayer.
We are net contributor to the EU - unlike most nations within it and should be respected as such.
Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.
You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.
The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull. If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.
Da Boss wrote: Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.
You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.
The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull. If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.
Errr.....I'll be honest, if you're equating us choosing not to join Schengen or the Euro as 'special deals', you probably won't get a very good reception. Primarily because from our (or my perspective at least), us deciding not to follow on with something that we're not legally obliged to do isn't quite in the same boat as issues of 'favouritism' or 'commercial advantage' (we were talking about that, so I'm assuming that's what your contribution was aimed at).
The same with the rebate, we understand we're going to pay more than we're going to get out, but being told we're getting 'special' treatment for the honour of keeping some of our own money grates a bit. Technically, you are correct. If Poland struck some kind of metaphorical oil, they'd be expected to share it, whilst we wouldn't so much. But technicalities, future variables and hypotheticals aside, in the current day/system, it's not so much an advantage to us as a correction of disadvantage.
I would still be interested if you can point out exception/'special deals' that are of unique advantage to us from the EU that nobody else possesses though.
None of which give us any money and a number of other countries have the same or similar opt outs of specific areas as noted in the same article - I guess they are all whners as they do not implement the Eurocrats demands unconditionally.
As others have outlined - there are plenty of much more dubious "understandings" which directly and economically benefit Eurozone countries.
Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration. You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.
This investment has been a byword for corruption since day one. Whilst its good for Germany in particular which benefitted from a massive rebuilding fund from other nations after the war and has gone from strength to strength since - it is debatable whether its actually benefitted the nations and their citizens or just the corrupt elements in them and the EU hierarchy.
I am not against migration - the Uk has always befitted from immigration over the millennia - however if the above had actually worked then there would be less economic migration from the Eurozone.
I'll say again. I'm not a fan of our rebate but without it there is not even a sniff of a chance for reorganisation of EU finances, the same as some of our other so called special privileges.
If we are seen as neurotic cry babies it is because the spin put out by other governments and the EU. Done to gloss over many of the glaring inefficiencies and corrupt practices that take place within them.
Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Gander.
For myself, my opposition to the EU stems not from jobs won or lost or how much money we get back from rebates or CAP or lightbulbs or whatever!
Democracy, and the people's right to exercise that democracy is why I'll be voting no.
Ever since the EU referendum starting gun was fired on Saturday, I have witnessed rank after rank of big business and banks declare their support for the EU. They cite jobs, market confidence, the bottom line, and yet, nowhere was there even a hint of the democratic case for staying IN or leaving the EU.
That corporate interests are shamefully waving the flag for their own vested interests is reason enough for me to vote no. They don't give a damn about the impact of closer union on ordinary people, and I don't give a damn about them!
They have their 5 year plans, I have mine.
In my travels around Europe, I have witnessed Italy and Greece put to the sword, Spain struggle with massive youth unemployment, and a refugee crisis spiral out of control. The Ukraine fiasco is proof enough that the EU should not be allowed within a million miles of having its own foreign policy.
A blind man could see that the EU needs reform, that it needs to be more nimble and flexible to react to a changing world, but they resist reform at every opportunity.
I don't doubt the good intentions of those behind the European project, but the technocrats have taken over - decisions and deals seem to be done behind closed doors. It's getting too corporate for me, too undemocratic.
When David Cameron went to Brussels to thrash out a 'deal.' he met with the President of the EU commission, The President of the EU Parliament, and various other flunkies. It was a bloated mess of pen pushers and bureaucrats. Who are these people? I follow politics closely, and I was stumped
I like Europe, and the European people, but the logical conclusion of the EU is a united states of Europe, and I'll be damned if we surrender our nation's sovereignty to a bunch of Brussels' pen pushers.
The UK exemption from the Working Time Directive, the UK exemption from the Units of Measurement Directive, and the UK opt-out from Schengen are all examples of special treatment for the UK compared to the rest of Europe. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)
Mr Morden: I am against special treatment of any one nation, including the stupid parliament building. What I am arguing against here is the idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe, it is plainly not true. Ireland has several opt outs (all of which I personally disagree with - most are there only to allow discrimination against non-Catholics). But we are not whining about being mistreated by "Europe" half as much as the UK.
Orlanth: I've also given facts and examples. Go and read them. Just because you guys think Rebate is fair dinkum does not make it any less special treatment for the UK that no one else gets. You can spin it however you like but other countries are not receiving it, only the UK.
Ketara: Technically I am correct? Surely you mean "I am correct". and it is not my fault if your perceptions are skewed by a eurosceptic press that inflates the sense of grievance to ridiculous levels.
I will post some more later - class just arrived so I better get teaching!
Mr Morden: To be honest, the press in the EU countries I've been in has been pretty restrained about the UK, and the governments generally even more so. But lots of us read your media, and what we see there makes us shake our heads in disgust.
To be really clear, I think there is a very strong case for the UK leaving the EU. The EU is progressing towards Federalisation, and you guys want no part of that. So perhaps it's better for ye to leave rather than sit on the sidelines carping and trying to block things like the Financial Transaction Tax and so on. The reasons for leaving are ideological rather than practical, and I think that's totally valid and okay.
What gets my back up is misinformation and negative propaganda thrown at the EU.
Ketara: Technically I am correct? Surely you mean "I am correct". and it is not my fault if your perceptions are skewed by a eurosceptic press that inflates the sense of grievance to ridiculous levels.
You are technically correct that it is an exception. Whether or not it is an advantage or a partial rectification of a disadvantage is a matter of both perspective and context.
For example, the rebate is something that could potentially (in the future) be an advantage if we fall into being one of the worse economies in the EU, as it would permit us to extract extra cash that a poorer country would not, and the new richer countries would not get that rebate(freeing up more for us). As things stand, this is not the case however, so it cannot be described as an advantage. An exception yes. An advantage, no.
In the current circumstance, we are at a disadvantage as one of the primary gravy train providers for the EU, in that we put far more in then we get back. It is accepted that you have to put something into the EU (those MP meal expenses don't pay themselves) to keep it functioning. But we provide such a large sum of income that we see very little return from. In that regard, we are at a disadvantage compared to smaller countries, who get to extract more money than they put in. Therefore the rebate merely lessens the level of disadvantage currently in existence in that budgetary relationship. Despite the rebate though, we are still disadvantaged in that regard however, because we still put in far more money than we receive back in value (in purely financial considerations).
The rebate is a response to the EU budget, and has to be seen in the context of it. 'Eurosceptic presses' really have nothing to do with it. I'd appreciate it if we stuck to the facts and left the suppositions about each others views and reading materials out?
Orlanth: I've also given facts and examples. Go and read them.
Just because you guys think Rebate is fair dinkum does not make it any less special treatment for the UK that no one else gets. You can spin it however you like but other countries are not receiving it, only the UK.
The rebate exists BECAUSE the UK as overcontributing to the EU and on not receiving much in the way of benefits. Other countries need no rebate either because the EU plays fair with them (e.g. France) or they are a net recipient (e.g Greece). The UK alone was expected to pay up and not get a fair deal Thatcher gave that the handbag, and well done to her too.
The rebate is not a privilege, its a balancing mechanism.
At least, the EU Commission said it won't intervene in the British campaign for the referendum.
And that's a good thing. If UK wants to get out, let it be by the voice of their people. I hope they will say "no" to the question of staying in Europe - thus Cameron and his disgusting bargains will finally be out, and he won't be able to blame it on EU this time.
Sarouan wrote: At least, the EU Commission said it won't intervene in the British campaign for the referendum.
And that's a good thing. If UK wants to get out, let it be by the voice of their people. I hope they will say "no" to the question of staying in Europe - thus Cameron and his disgusting bargains will finally be out, and he won't be able to blame it on EU this time.
Fair point, you can have a preference so long as we leave it to a plebiscite.
In or Out the UK makes a choice though, here and now, and should not afterwards get all SNP on everyone and look for ways of having more referenda.
It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.
The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.
The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.
Any doubts I had about voting to leave have evaporated, now that I've seen Nick Clegg declare his support for the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.
The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.
The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.
Agree with this, and I've never had a problem with richer countries in the EU helping the poorer countries develop, I've always accepted that was part of the deal.
To be really clear, I think there is a very strong case for the UK leaving the EU. The EU is progressing towards Federalisation, and you guys want no part of that. So perhaps it's better for ye to leave rather than sit on the sidelines carping and trying to block things like the Financial Transaction Tax and so on. The reasons for leaving are ideological rather than practical, and I think that's totally valid and okay.
What gets my back up is misinformation and negative propaganda thrown at the EU.
You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.
And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.
You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.
And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.
What UK involvement? Involvement of sabotaging the way EU should work? So far, all UK has done is just whining about how unfair things are going for them while they have a fething special status in EU since the very beginning. The other countries don't have that luck, and that's what is really disgusting.
Of course it's not advantageous of UK to leave - that's why Cameron tried to make its bargains to the end, to convince the others UK was "so important" to stay inside at all costs. Truth is...it isn't. But then, the voices of other states not convinced by Cameron's lies were not heard. Again.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.
The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.
The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.
I was addressing the purely financial aspect regarding the perception of the rebate as an 'advantage' or disadvantage'. I did acknowledge that the EU had running costs.
With regards to transferring money from West to East, the extent to which that should take place is certainly up for debate however, as is the myriad number of other projects the EU requires finance for. Those are separate discussions and points to that which I was making though.
You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.
And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.
What UK involvement? Involvement of sabotaging the way EU should work? So far, all UK has done is just whining about how unfair things are going for them while they have a fething special status in EU since the very beginning. The other countries don't have that luck, and that's what is really disgusting.
Of course it's not advantageous of UK to leave - that's why Cameron tried to make its bargains to the end, to convince the others UK was "so important" to stay inside at all costs. Truth is...it isn't. But then, the voices of other states not convinced by Cameron's lies were not heard. Again.
I read opinions such as this, and am reminded that skewed perspective certainly goes both ways, in Europe as well as Britain. It makes me wonder if some of the Continental Press is as rabid as our own.
The rebate is something the UK gets which is not enjoyed by the other EU members. From that angle it is a special advantage to the UK, though obviously compared to not paying any EU subscription fees at all, it isn't an advantage.
The point that needs to be considered, is whether the UK gets more 'value' out of EU membership than the raw £ price paid in.
This is where the perception that the UK pays in £X and gets out £X-y is not necessarily correct. There are other benefits to EU membership than simply drawing out cash.
Kilkrazy wrote: The rebate is something the UK gets which is not enjoyed by the other EU members. From that angle it is a special advantage to the UK, though obviously compared to not paying any EU subscription fees at all, it isn't an advantage.
The point that needs to be considered, is whether the UK gets more 'value' out of EU membership than the raw £ price paid in.
This is where the perception that the UK pays in £X and gets out £X-y is not necessarily correct. There are other benefits to EU membership than simply drawing out cash.
Oh, certainly. I was approaching it from the purely financial sense of it being an 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'.
Those other benefits (or lack thereof) and their quantity/value are something I intend to investigate myself closer to the time.
It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.
France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.
Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.
To an extent, this is part of how the EU works as it is a bunch of nations pressing for advantages at times. France has done similar with CAP, Ireland has done similar with regard to social issues, Germany has thrown it's weight around in the crisis. This is the cut and thrust of European politics, and sometimes it can be aggravating to be on the wrong side of.
What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.
As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.
Da Boss wrote: It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.
France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.
Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.
As I said, it really depends on context. Compared purely to Germany. It seems like a special advantage. Compared to Poland? It seems like a slight rectification of a disadvantage. When looked at in light of the total EU budget? It seems the same way. When you begin to incorporate aspects beyond pure monetary exchange? It gets bloody complicated.
All I was doing was pointing that you initially listed it as being an exception (which it is), but in the context of 'advantages', when classifying it as such is really very debatable depending on context (as we have seen). What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.
What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.
This is most likely because I was never trying to argue that. Ever. Indeed, I stated the opposite. If you go back to one of my previous posts relating to the EU:-
Ketara wrote:I feel that concerns of 'favouritism' are overplayed most of the time. It does happen, but that sort of thing happens in any form of government, and I don't feel they're any worse than our own in this regard.
I know you're passionate on this Da Boss, but I'm starting to feel a little bit like you're painting a strawman face on me with all these comments about 'my perceptions being skewed by the press' and arguing things I've stated I'm in agreement on. I'm an unconvinced voter. I don't stand one way or the other right now.
As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.
See, I don't believe for a minute Cameron was ever actually negotiating. I reckon he shut up in the room with the rest of the EU leaders, and said, 'I want to keep us in, what can we make up to let me spin as a victory that nobody has a problem with/can be rectified later?' He was a professional spin doctor before he was PM, and this entire affair relating to him has been about him trying to spin it in favour of staying.
Well Ketara I can only unreservedly apologise for misrepresenting you. I'm very sorry because I missed your previous post, and thought you were arguing a point you were not. I'm sorry!
Re-reading your points, I guess I don't have such a distance from you on these issues (though I certainly feel the Rebate counts as a special UK benefit that others do not get. If the UK's economy ever tanked enough, it would be able to avail of EU funds just the same as somewhere like Poland.)
I'm also not meaning to imply that you passively absorb eurosceptic media, but I do think it's an important point when considering the UK position on Europe. I consume British, Irish and a bit of German media, as well as US media obviously. I also follow I guess the "EU Bubble" end of things which is probably not a good source.
The British media is invariably the worst of the lot when it comes to Europe, misrepresenting issues, reporting in an unclear fashion on the structures and players in Europe and downright under-reporting what goes on in the EU parliament. For reference, I mainly read the BBC and the Guardian, and even the much vaunted BBC I believe is quite poor when it comes to accurate reporting of European issues.
So my digs at the british media are not supposed to be a dig at you, I just feel you are all poorly served by them. I'll try and rein it in though!
Last point, on Cameron's negotiations: Well, the feeling is that he's very slapdash, impatient, and has no real regard for the way things are done in EU diplomacy. There is also a sort of eye rolling irritation at his grandstanding when we've got a migration crisis going on that he contributes bugger all constructive support to.
I mean, I personally dislike him quite a lot (though not as much as I dislike Osborne) so of course my personal bias colours the whole thing pretty strongly.
Anyhow. Please accept my genuine apologies again! I was arguing with multiple people at once there, and I guess you guys all sort of morphed into one for me.
The interesting thing I've found, with Boris Johnson going for a 'Brexit' is that he's apparently talked about how hard and difficult a decision it was.
I mean, sure, we're talking about Boris. As in..
That Boris.
But still, I kinda wish he'd well, kinda 'show his working' if that makes sense? If we were to take him at his word (from what little I know of him, for all his faults, playing coy isn't the kinda thing he'd do), he would probably have done some research, with some sort of pros and cons ideas.
This sort of admittance from a senior political figure of it being a hard decision is kind of what I want to see.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.
The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.
The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.
Its nice when it actually works. The issue is when there are too many countries which are sucking down cash and not improving at all(like Greece) that makes it a bad idea, and the people running the EU having little to no accountability.
"The people running the EU" are either directly elected or appointed by people who are directly elected. There are "civil servants" who are unelected, but they are not unlike civil servants in any government.
People can hold EU officials to account in the usual way - it's just that people tend not to pay too much attention to what is going on in the EU and then complain about it instead.
Compel wrote: The interesting thing I've found, with Boris Johnson going for a 'Brexit' is that he's apparently talked about how hard and difficult a decision it was.
I mean, sure, we're talking about Boris. As in..
That Boris.
But still, I kinda wish he'd well, kinda 'show his working' if that makes sense? If we were to take him at his word (from what little I know of him, for all his faults, playing coy isn't the kinda thing he'd do), he would probably have done some research, with some sort of pros and cons ideas.
This sort of admittance from a senior political figure of it being a hard decision is kind of what I want to see.
I don't think his "difficult decision" had much to do with the pros and cons of leaving The EU. I think it was entirely a political career decision.
Da Boss wrote: Well Ketara I can only unreservedly apologise for misrepresenting you. I'm very sorry because I missed your previous post, and thought you were arguing a point you were not. I'm sorry!
Apology wholeheartedly accepted, it's very easy to lose track in big discussions. I've done it myself more than once.
Re-reading your points, I guess I don't have such a distance from you on these issues (though I certainly feel the Rebate counts as a special UK benefit that others do not get. If the UK's economy ever tanked enough, it would be able to avail of EU funds just the same as somewhere like Poland.)
Oh, certainly. The rebate really is one of those double(or quadruple) edged sword things, it cuts one way for us, but can easily cut another.
I know that most talk about EU favouritism is exaggeration, there are a few points of favoritism that have occurred (some of which I've raised), but generally speaking, it's to be expected in any form of governance depending on the importance of an issue to any given party. Our ministers/negotiators were clearly looking the wrong way when the fishing thing was negotiated for example, so they're clearly just as culpable as the EU in that regard. I'd support the issue being re-opened by the British though, now that it's come to light, but it's certainly not an important enough factor right now to be worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm also not meaning to imply that you passively absorb eurosceptic media, but I do think it's an important point when considering the UK position on Europe. I consume British, Irish and a bit of German media, as well as US media obviously. I also follow I guess the "EU Bubble" end of things which is probably not a good source.
The British media is invariably the worst of the lot when it comes to Europe, misrepresenting issues, reporting in an unclear fashion on the structures and players in Europe and downright under-reporting what goes on in the EU parliament. For reference, I mainly read the BBC and the Guardian, and even the much vaunted BBC I believe is quite poor when it comes to accurate reporting of European issues.
So my digs at the british media are not supposed to be a dig at you, I just feel you are all poorly served by them. I'll try and rein it in though!
My sources are probably a bit more international than most, as I work at the London Business School at the moment. As the training ground for a mostly foreign cadre of business orientated postgraduates, there's a lot of magazines from about the globe. Admittedly, I'm limited to the English ones (we have Le Monde daily for example, but I don't speak French!), but it means I get to flick through things like Time, Bloomburg Businessweek, The Economist, etc on top of my staple readings of The Times and The Guardian. I do also browse the BBC website daily, and Reuters on occasion.
Last point, on Cameron's negotiations: Well, the feeling is that he's very slapdash, impatient, and has no real regard for the way things are done in EU diplomacy. There is also a sort of eye rolling irritation at his grandstanding when we've got a migration crisis going on that he contributes bugger all constructive support to.
He came across a lot better when partnered with Clegg to be honest. I think partnering with the Lib Dems gave the Tories a perspective they sorely need, and the Tories a realism the Lib Dems lack, frustrating as it must have been for both parties. With regards to his performance in Europe, this is the first time he's made any real waves, usually he just falls into line with Merkel. Which is what makes me suspect the whole thing is being deliberately spun by both him and everyone else. You have the French President saying one thing about this deal that's the opposite of what Cameron says, whilst the French Foreign Minister says the opposite to agree with him. You have the Poles taking a hardline before suddenly collapsing but still saying they defended their interests. The whole thing has just had such a collaborative and overdramatic whiff about it that I can't bring myself to believe any of it.
I suspect the European media are grimacing at his attitude shown thus far, but the European Governments are biting their tongues because they know his exaggerated rhetoric is false, serves a purpose (keeping Britain in), and is temporary for a few months at worst. Cameron is trying to spin and cater to an audience as best he can, and they're trying to give him the room to do out. The European media aren't privy to that though, and they're not familiar enough with the intricacies of British politics to understand why he's putting on the song and dance he is. So it's only natural they'd be critical.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU That is an assumption not a fact. Where did the UK citizens vote on that?
as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.
Current world events disagree.
You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.
Thats an assumption. facts to support?
The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull. If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.
Da Boss wrote: The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.
Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.
Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).
What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?
Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.
There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).
Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.
What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?
Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.
That's the question. Or, to make it more accurate, what unique benefits exist for the UK to remain in the EU?
There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).
Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.
Why wouldn't they? Britain is a rich nation. I can't see India or similar economies not wanting a piece of that cash. At the end of the day, money talks. If the EU refuses to sell to an exited Britain, there'll be plenty of other nations all too willing to sell to us.
What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?
Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.
I'm voting to leave, Frazz, and money and jobs don't carry much water with me, because the fundamental issue is democratic freedom.
Should the British people have the final say on decisions that effect Britain or should decisions affecting Britain be made by unelected pen pushers in Brussels (EU headquarters)
Frazz, Brussels is like your Federal government in Washington. It's full of people with good intentions who mean well, but once they get some power, they take more and more, they can't help themselves. Over the last 30 years, the EU has expanded to become this massive organisation, much like your federal government.
Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.
Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.
There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).
Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.
In this "global age" of high speed communication and travel, distance is kind of irrelevant.
The interests lie in the fact that Britain is a wealthy nation and the Commonwealth is a long established, world-wide institution. The closer ties with the United Kingdom can lead to more favorable agreements in the long run. It would also allow these nations' economies to further tap into new markets that Britain has access to, but the EU member states might not have a strong foothold in.
Grey Templar wrote: Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.
But your government is part of the council of ministers and the European council who in turn are the bosses of the bureaucracy.
Grey Templar wrote: Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.
But your government is part of the council of ministers and the European council who in turn are the bosses of the bureaucracy.
So no voting out politicians then. Instead I have to write to my elected representative, hope they care, hope they have are able to somehow get enough support across all states to bin the politician in enough time before they retire. Hmmm
You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
Da Boss wrote: You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
Da Boss wrote: You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
So how do I vote out Junker?
Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.
Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.
I believe you're arguing that these have value. Why? To play Devil's advocate, it just insures that those that control the means of production can move it to the area of cheapest labor, or inversely hire that cheap labor into the home country. It benefits the ownership class but not the working or professional class.
I'll say it again, what is the advantage of the EU that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
Da Boss wrote: You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
So how do I vote out Junker?
Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.
So one of the most powerful men in the EU, who proposes new laws and legislation, is not directly accountable to the voters. Hmmmm
Da Boss wrote: You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
So how do I vote out Junker?
By voting for you preferred representative* for the European Council which nominates him, and voting for your preferred representatives in the European Parliament who appoint him and can directly sack him.
* In the case of UK, this would be the Prime Minister
The core concept of a democracy isn't to vote people out. It's to vote for the party you think could represent you and your ideas the best. People very often confuse democracy with a popularity vote where major political decisions should be directly decided by the general populace - which is a HORRIBLE idea.
zedmeister: Look at it this way. David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK because he was chosen as the leader of the largest faction in your parliament - the Conservative and Unionist Party. You didn't directly elect David Cameron as Prime Minister, and you cannot directly vote him out until next election. Should he mess up spectacularly, he may be forced to resign, but he is Prime Minister because he has the support of the largest unified faction in the UK Parliament.
Junker was the nominee of the largest bloc in the European Parliament - the EPP. This is a centre-right bloc containing most of the conservative parties in Europe. (Interestingly, Cameron took the Conservatives out of this influential bloc and into the much less influential eurosceptic ECR group, which is seen as something of a betrayal by other EPP members, notably Merkel).
Had the balance of power in the European Parliament been with the Socialists, then the Socialist candidate would have been appointed, much as it works in the UK parliament.
So really, the situation is not much different. Junker is there because the majority of countries elected Centre Right candidates to the Parliament. If you did not know this, I would think it wise to reflect on why that is. (Hint: Your media does a terrible job of informing you on this stuff).
Edit to Add: I friggin' intensely dislike Junker by the way and feel that he stands for just about everything wrong with the EU. But I never vote for any EPP candidates. That's just how things are - if your opinion is in the minority, you don't get the call the shots.
Da Boss wrote: It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.
France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.
Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.
The Uk and other counties pay in based on GDP, but nothing gets paid out so simply. The EU pay outs are heavily weighted towards certain activities, most notably agriculture. Agriculture is highlighted because ther true special advantage case in the EU, France, insists it is. This is almost inevitable because the French agricultural union is immensely strong and has a vast membership is grossly inefficient but is mobile and motivated. Generation of French governments have been unable to do anything except pander to them.
This has a knock on effect across Europe, agriculture gets the lions share of subsidy even though poverty and need can occur in different industries.
The UK, which has a very efficient agricultural system, both in terms of profitability and in terms of manpower has little need of such subsidy compared to other nations, but has need for investment in other areas.
Due to the overfocus on agricultural payouts and the efficiency of the British farmer the UK was paying in a highly disproportionate amount of money and getting very little in return. Thatcher therefore demanded a rebate to balance, and due to her strength of personality achieved her goal.
To an extent, this is part of how the EU works as it is a bunch of nations pressing for advantages at times. France has done similar with CAP, Ireland has done similar with regard to social issues, Germany has thrown it's weight around in the crisis. This is the cut and thrust of European politics, and sometimes it can be aggravating to be on the wrong side of.
So you sort of recognise this, but its ok if they do it, but not if the UK does it.
What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.
You must be immune to facts then, It has been explained clearly enough.
What you are saying is 'la la la not listening'.
As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.
Hopefully the EU isnt as racially motivated against us as you proclaim.
I am not immune to facts, I merely do not accept your premise.
It is exactly as okay when the UK does it as when anyone else does it - as in, not really, but it's an inevitable part of complex diplomacy.
Banging on about the CAP was relevant in the 80s, but the money allocated to it has been dropping year on year for ages. It's much less significant than it was.
Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.
I believe you're arguing that these have value. Why? To play Devil's advocate, it just insures that those that control the means of production can move it to the area of cheapest labor, or inversely hire that cheap labor into the home country. It benefits the ownership class but not the working or professional class.
I'll say it again, what is the advantage of the EU that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?
It lowrs unemployment, a fundamental problem in Europe. The free movement directive does not allow employers to pay EU imigrants worse than the national population and local benefits apply. Social policy is coordinated to prevent a race to the bottom unlike free trade agreements.
However, as in the case with the UK, poorer immigrants have been coming from Eastern EU members correct? Those members are willing to work for less, thus undercutting domestic labor.
Inversely those for pulling out the EU, the UK would then be subject to the same tariff schedules and nontariff barriers that we outside the EU all know and love.
This is interesting that the UK has traditionally held itself apart from Europe and only intervened when the Balance-of-Power was at stake. Therefore, I can see why joining the EU would lead to a gut-reaction of pushing away.
Since WWII they have more closely aligned with North America and Australia/NZ than the EU. However, can an EU isolationist policy actually work in these globalist times? I really do not know. Good luck to you!
It most certainly can. The big strength the UK has is its tight alliance with the US and the high potential for industry. The UK certainly profits from the EU, but as others already said, it doesn't get much in return for what they turn in. Truth be told, that's the general problem of the German...eh...European union and its richer countries, but it's special for the UK given its unique state.
... What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.
...
The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive. The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive. The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)
Why look at policies advantageous to the UK alone, though? There probably are various different policies that are advantageous to different countries. The fishing policy hardly is likely to affect Germany and Slovakia, for instance, but they no doubt benefit from the policy on straight skis, along with France but not Greece, Spain or Portugal.
Frazzled wrote: However, as in the case with the UK, poorer immigrants have been coming from Eastern EU members correct? Those members are willing to work for less, thus undercutting domestic labor.
Inversely those for pulling out the EU, the UK would then be subject to the same tariff schedules and nontariff barriers that we outside the EU all know and love.
That is hard to determine as the 4 freedoms also allow companies to move as well, so there is extra supply of labor on the one hand, but extra demand on the other.
Imagine we'd split up the US into 50 states and you couldn't work, start a business, sell your products, rent a house or go to school out of state without permission from the other state. Do you think that would improve or decrease living conditions for most people?
Kilkrazy - a minor point, but Ireland was pretty much forced to not go for Schengen when the UK did, due to the Common Travel Area and the border with Northern Ireland.
We did want to be part of it, but it wasn't practical if you guys stayed out.
This does annoy me because it's a big inconvenience to me living over here having my passport as my only valid form of ID and having to carry it around with me. It's currently being renewed so I have no ID til it comes back, which is very annoying.
The engineer in me has to point out that the UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive was so our market traders could carry on using old trading patter - we use the system internationale d'unite (SI units) everywhere else, since it makes more sense for international trading.
...
What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.
...
The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive.
The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)
I'm afraid I can't see how choosing to not enact a optional piece of legislation is equivalent to having a piece of legislation or policy which favours us. The EU could enact an optional policy making puppies illegal tomorrow that we choose not to enact. That doesn't make it an EU policy advantageous to the UK, any moreso than choosing to not actually be in the EU is somehow an EU sponsored advantage.
Why look at policies advantageous to the UK alone, though?
Curiosity primarily. I'm aware that there a handful of cases of obvious 'no-downside' favoritism in the EU relating to other countries. I was merely wondering if anyone could point to any in our department (for no other purpose than curiosity).
Judging by the lack of unarguable clear cut examples, the answer would appear to be no.
Da Boss wrote: Kilkrazy - a minor point, but Ireland was pretty much forced to not go for Schengen when the UK did, due to the Common Travel Area and the border with Northern Ireland.
We did want to be part of it, but it wasn't practical if you guys stayed out.
This does annoy me because it's a big inconvenience to me living over here having my passport as my only valid form of ID and having to carry it around with me. It's currently being renewed so I have no ID til it comes back, which is very annoying.
I didn’t know that, however it reinforces my point that the UK got a special consideration to opt out of Schengen.
If you visit the continent, you will quickly realise there are places where things simply could not work without Schengen. If you nip over from the UK to Calais on the car train, you can within about two hours drive through France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Luxembourg. The locals often cover three countries in a day, either commuting to work or just to nip to the supermarket with the best prices for apples or whatever.
SirDonlad wrote: The engineer in me has to point out that the UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive was so our market traders could carry on using old trading patter - we use the system internationale d'unite (SI units) everywhere else, since it makes more sense for international trading.
It also relieved us of the necessity to change all our road signs to read in km rather than miles.
Obviously all our international science and engineering is done in SI units and has been for a long time. (NASA changed over to SI in the 1960s, I believe.) This is an example of how the UK is forced to conform to international standards whether we are part of the EU or not. There are many other examples of international standards that predate the EU (Greenwich Mean Time, International Postal Union, and so on.)
...
What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.
...
The UK opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The UK opt-out from the Units of Measurement Directive.
The UK opt-out from Schengen. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)
I'm afraid I can't see how choosing to not enact a optional piece of legislation is equivalent to having a piece of legislation or policy which favours us. The EU could enact an optional policy making puppies illegal tomorrow that we choose not to enact. That doesn't make it an EU policy advantageous to the UK, any moreso than choosing to not actually be in the EU is somehow an EU sponsored advantage.
...
If these pieces of legislation were optional it rather undermines the idea that the UK is subject to brutal interference by edicts from faceless Eurocrats. However, they weren’t.
Compel wrote: Is the "Units of Measures Directive" the root of the "The EU tried to scam us out of a full pint!" claim I heard?
EG, a hypothetical attempt to make alcoholic drinks be sold as 500ml instead of 568ml?
Its noit a scare.
Heard of the 'metric martyrs'? Market traders who wanted to reserve the right to sell goods in pounds and ounces to their customers and were prosecuted for it under EU law.
Its the sort of area the EU should butt out of.
Road signs in miles, beer and milk in pints, traditional stuff.
Yes, indeed, and the UK has a opt-out from the Units Directive to enable UK traders to continue to offer Imperial measurements.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To return to Ketara's question, if I understand it correctly, we are looking for pieces of EU legislation (directives, etc) that only affect the UK and give the UK an advantage compared to other EU members.
The thing about searching for this kind of case is that the EU creates legislation that applies to all member states, and there can be opt-outs and exceptions, like the many ones that the UK has already got.
The EU doesn't make laws for the UK alone. Technically it doesn't make laws for anyone. The individual member states have to pass their own legislation to bring their internal law into line with the directives (like Working Time or Units and Measurements, etc.)
It's little stuff like signs in miles, pints as pints not 500mm that gets annoying.
They want to dicate everything....
What the feth does it matter a 568mm pint or traders shouting out by the pound and ounces.
Miles, miles are the unit of measurement every driver in UK used, also the change would require changing car speedo at times, replacing every road sign in the UK with a speed on.
Next want us to drive on other side of the road....
Perfectly called for to ignore that rubbish. Last time!r I checked we still have some sovereign rights left.
Da Boss wrote: You vote them out the same way you always vote out politicians - in your national elections and European elections. You can't vote out the politicians of other countries, but that is no different to a texan not being able to vote out the senator from New Hampshire.
So how do I vote out Junker?
Through the European parliament by motion of censure. They've send the Santer lead Commision home in 99.
So one of the most powerful men in the EU, who proposes new laws and legislation, is not directly accountable to the voters. Hmmmm
I consider myself to be very pro-European but the method of national governments selecting European commisioners (who then vote for European President) is extremely dubious. It would rate very highly on my list of essential reforms. Sadly it wasn't on Cameron's list.
Kilkrazy wrote: If 'they' want to dictate everything, why did the UK get an opt out from the Units and Measurement Directive?
It's a bit hard to dictate stuff when you keep not dictating it.
Because we said no and fought for the opt out? The very fact that an opt out had to be negotiated and put in place shows that the EU did want to 'dictate' it originally.
People were prosecuted over this before we got the opt out.
As I type this, 123 people have cast their votes on the EU question. I'm aware that the dakka demographic will probably be overwhelmingly white males aged 18-45, but I'm wondering if the dakka poll reflects the nation's voting intentions come June?
same person , you might recall, did this during the election
..... I ...
..well..
..... guess that's Eurovision sorted then
Where in God's name do you get this stuff from?
It doesn't matter what the thread is - Swiss Navy, gun reform in America, new Tau products, you always seem to pop up with bizarre and funny links and videos.
I was cringed into stopping that video after only 11 seconds, which is impressively bad allowing for the long intro.
You should ban yourself from Dakka for a week for posting that reds8n.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I type this, 123 people have cast their votes on the EU question. I'm aware that the dakka demographic will probably be overwhelmingly white males aged 18-45, but I'm wondering if the dakka poll reflects the nation's voting intentions come June?
Not for me, I thought it was asking if we should stay so I voted yes before re-reading the question
Kilkrazy wrote: If 'they' want to dictate everything, why did the UK get an opt out from the Units and Measurement Directive?
It's a bit hard to dictate stuff when you keep not dictating it.
Because we said no and fought for the opt out? The very fact that an opt out had to be negotiated and put in place shows that the EU did want to 'dictate' it originally.
People were prosecuted over this before we got the opt out.
The EU commission thought it was beneficial for the economic growth of the whole zone to have the same regulations on work time and measurements. It made a suggestion that every other state AGREED ON, even the UK. They just wanted to have an opt-out, so that it could become European law but at the same time not bind them right now.
To have a big international market with the same rules set is superbeneficial to the UK, ESPECIALLY if they can benefit from it without being obliged to follow all of its rules.
It is a total dilusion to think that new policies would be "dictated" by Brussels.
It is true that the commission is eager to expand its say on policies. You can critize that.
It is also true that once everyone agrees that a certain policy should be dealt with by the EU, the commission can enforce the member states' compliance (up to a point).
But at no point is there a DICTATE. Unless you make no difference between "dicate" and "make a proposal".
Either your elected rulers chose to hand responsibilities over - which they would only do if it was beneficial for them (and in most cases this will hopefully mean "for your country") - or they did and do not.
Seriously, it is your vote if you want to stay in the EU or not. If you think there is no benefit, I might disagree, but it is not my choice. It is yours.
Just do not repeat asinine conspiracy theories about how Brussels usurps powers from nation states. It is nation states that give that power away.
Of course there are examples where the commission expanded demands beyond their original mandate. They try it all the time, in fact. But if they succeed it is because the governments let them do it. If you are angry, be angry with your government, who lets important regulations be decided upon in the middle of the night in the agricultural council.
Any time a transnational problem is solved through EU institutions, your leaders will tell you "It was me!" Everytime they need to decide on something unpopular, they will push it through the EU and call "It was them!" And you believe their lies.
If the commission had more to say than Germany or France (as a nation-state), how come that France has not been facing contractual infringement proceedings for busting the stability pact in 5+ years? It is because the German-French powerhouse tells them to shut up or else.
Germany is quiet about French deficit, France covers Germany's sabotaging of stricter rules on car emissions. Quid pro Quo, that is how the European governments have worked together for decades. And I have no doubt that the UK governments were intelligent and selfish enough to have greatly benefitted from it.
Dude, I'm angry with both my government AND the EU. Don't try to spin this into me blaming everything on foreigners.
I KNOW that my own governments have been complicit in the salami slicing of British national soveriegnty. The British Prime Minister David Cameron is pro EU, and even stated a year ago that he he would campaign to Stay no matter what happened. The EU could have rejected every one of his demands but he'd still campaign to stay. All three mainstream British parties, and even the fourth largest party the SNP, are all pro EU.
That's why I voted UKIP in 2015, and in the last euro elections. I know they're a joke party that will never form a government, and I don't even necessarily agree with all of their policies, but voting UKIP is the biggest feth you I can make to the pro EU elite.
The purpose of the EU is to harmonise trade conditions and regulations throughout Europe. Part of this is for example making sure that all weights and measure follow a standard system. The SI system was selected because it was already widespread in Europe and also in world science. In fact, the UK (and perhaps Eire) was the only country that had not already converted to metric. Even so, the UK was given an opt out that allows us to continue to label goods with Imperial units and to on.
Why would the EU would not want the UK to adopt metrification like every other EU member nation?
Why did the UK get an opt out from metrification?
Because it wasn't dictated, and we argued against it.
Shadow Captain: Bit of a tangent, but aren't the SNP the third biggest party in Britain now? They have seven times the representatives of the Lib Dems, correct? So when do they become a "main" party?
Lib Dems are tied in 4th place with the DUP.
Ketara: Kilkrazy and others have explained why having an opt out specially allowed for you is a benefit. You'll either accept that or you won't I guess. In the same way you will either accept that the rebate is a special benefit for the UK or not.
To me, it's really pretty clear, and I find your arguments to the contrary kinda weak.
But on the issue of the Brexit it's hardly important. The issue is going to be decided on people's perceptions and feelings of the situation.
One thing I see a lot of that I think is wrong is people going on about what this politician or the other politician says, or what this party or that party says. My experience of referenda is that what political parties say on issues like this does not matter. People have the chance to vote for something important and so they tend to think about it personally and choose for themselves rather than along party lines. I believe this will happen in the Brexit.
I find it very hard to call though. I think it will be close. I believe that polls show that there are more Remainers than Leavers, but I think it's also clear that the Leavers are by far the more passionate bunch. If the Remainers can't be convinced to go to the polls and vote, the passionate leavers might indeed carry it.
But there's a pretty large undecided portion. If they swing down on one side or the other, that cinches it. But experience shows that that doesn't tend to happen unless there is an amazing campaign by one side (which doesn't seem likely really) or events come up that cause a change of mood.
The shennanigans with the Pound are an example of the sort of thing that might spook undecideds and motivate Remainers into voting. So on balance, I expect a vote to Remain. But I am not confident about that at all. Equally, more problems with migrants a la Cologne could push things to Leave, and God forbid, a terrorist attack could throw everything up in the air. (I actually think if there was a terrorist attack the whole vote should be postponed until everyone has calmed down. Maybe. I've not thought this statement through very carefully!).
Da Boss wrote: Shadow Captain: Bit of a tangent, but aren't the SNP the third biggest party in Britain now? They have seven times the representatives of the Lib Dems, correct? So when do they become a "main" party?
Oops, yes of course. Excuse me. I guess I'm still stuck in a pre-2015 mindset.
I don't think there can be a fantastic campaign by either side.
The pro side hasn't got a good story to tell, partly because the actual benefits are diffuse (free market, etc) and difficult to make a connection to people's daily lives.
Against that, the anti side doesn't have a strong positive story of why we would be better off outside. We'd save a bit of money, but not as much as people think. Most of it is the nasty things the EU compels us to do by their so-called edicts, that we could get rid of.
For example, we could repeal the Human Rights Act. I'm not sure how that benefits us. I actually like having human rights enshrined in law.
I agree. I do not expect a particularly edifying campaign.
I expect the Remainers to go negative as they did with Scotland. I expect a lot of scare talk about the economy. It is probably true that the economy will take a dip after Brexit but I don't think that's a good enough reason to sway voters. You should vote for what you believe in.
I expect the Outers will continue their usual misinformation. Those that believe them will believe them, the rest will mostly ignore them having made up their own minds already.
I expect negativity and attacks from both sides, and a fairly ugly campaign overall. I hope I'm wrong though - it would be great to see a critical discussion of the pros and cons of Europe played out in a country with such an influential media.
Whatever happens, I hope the leaders in the EU take note at the fact that it has come to this and have a serious think about why the EU is so unpopular at the moment. If the project is to survive, they need to address this.
Da Boss wrote: I agree. I do not expect a particularly edifying campaign.
I expect the Remainers to go negative as they did with Scotland. I expect a lot of scare talk about the economy. It is probably true that the economy will take a dip after Brexit but I don't think that's a good enough reason to sway voters. You should vote for what you believe in.
I expect the Outers will continue their usual misinformation. Those that believe them will believe them, the rest will mostly ignore them having made up their own minds already.
I expect negativity and attacks from both sides, and a fairly ugly campaign overall. I hope I'm wrong though - it would be great to see a critical discussion of the pros and cons of Europe played out in a country with such an influential media.
Whatever happens, I hope the leaders in the EU take note at the fact that it has come to this and have a serious think about why the EU is so unpopular at the moment. If the project is to survive, they need to address this.
We finally agree on something
In an ideal world, the Remain side would present a case for the EU that talked up its many benefiets, and how it would led to a peaceful and prosperous Europe, with reform and democratic accountability at its heart.
The Out side would talk about an exciting future following Brexit, where Britain could reinvent itself for the 21st century, forging new trade alliances with emerging global economies, and being a lean and nimble country, fit for the future.
Big ideas like democracy and a positive vision for Britain, in or out the EU, would be the norm.
Instead, like I said earlier, we'll get a gutter war. Out voters will be branded little Englanders and xenophobes. In voters will be accused of being on the EU payroll. The debate will suffer, and the big ideas will go out the window.
From now until June, all you'll hear from IN is jobs jobs jobs. Economy. Economy. Economy.
and from the Out side: Migrants. Migrants. Migrants. 55 million a day. 55 million a day.
I love political debate, but even for me, this referendum is getting FETHING depressing...and it's just started...
Likewise, I'm a huge politics nerd who is interested in both Britain and Europe, but I watch the debate with a sort of quiet disgust at all sides.
Do_I_Not_Like_That, I reckon you and I, like Ketara and I and Shadow Captain and I all agree on lots of stuff. Even really core values orientated stuff.
What we disagree on is how to get there - through the vehicle of a supra-national organisation like the EU or as individual nation states forging our own way.
Though I have been sarcastic and caustic here, I do respect Outers who at least are informed and are voting based on some core belief. I just get irritated by the misinformation about the EU that I see quite often.
But this thread has been miles better than something like a Guardian comment thread because I sort of "know" you guys and it keeps me a bit more in check and makes me read your points a bit more carefully, even when I'm annoyed and frustrated. It's the main reason I like the OT - I get to debate with people I disagree with but have a connection with due to our shared hobbies and interests.
Anyhow. Looking at the "Leaders" on both sides, you've got Cameron, Osborne and Mandelson on one side (urgh, someone pass the garlic and holy water) and Farage, BoJo and Galloway on the other. A real clash of the titans.
From now until June, all you'll hear from IN is jobs jobs jobs. Economy. Economy. Economy.
and from the Out side: Migrants. Migrants. Migrants. 55 million a day. 55 million a day.
Perhaps thats a good reason to leave. Both sides would finally be quiet, but if you stay the people who want to leave won't ever shut up.
Lots of people have said this, but if one side doesn't win by a big margin, say 60% and the final result is something like 52% Vs. 48% then the Europe issue will get very messy and spill over into future elections....for a very long time.
Da Boss wrote: Likewise, I'm a huge politics nerd who is interested in both Britain and Europe, but I watch the debate with a sort of quiet disgust at all sides.
Do_I_Not_Like_That, I reckon you and I, like Ketara and I and Shadow Captain and I all agree on lots of stuff. Even really core values orientated stuff.
What we disagree on is how to get there - through the vehicle of a supra-national organisation like the EU or as individual nation states forging our own way.
Though I have been sarcastic and caustic here, I do respect Outers who at least are informed and are voting based on some core belief. I just get irritated by the misinformation about the EU that I see quite often.
But this thread has been miles better than something like a Guardian comment thread because I sort of "know" you guys and it keeps me a bit more in check and makes me read your points a bit more carefully, even when I'm annoyed and frustrated. It's the main reason I like the OT - I get to debate with people I disagree with but have a connection with due to our shared hobbies and interests.
Anyhow. Looking at the "Leaders" on both sides, you've got Cameron, Osborne and Mandelson on one side (urgh, someone pass the garlic and holy water) and Farage, BoJo and Galloway on the other. A real clash of the titans.
Thanks for the kind words.
For the record, I do like Europe, and I'm the first to admit that the European Union has done some good things in the past. But, I'm voting to leave because I believe the logical conclusion of the EU is a United States of Europe, which is something I don't want.
A loose trading alliance of nations, that co-operate on security and other issues, is fine by me, but a United States of Europe. Not for me.
Aye. I come down on the other side of that argument - I believe a united states of europe is the only way the EU can continue.
But I share some of the concerns you guys have about it, especially in terms of how decisions are made and democratic structures can be weak at times. Which is why Cameron's renegotiation was such a wasted chance.
Grey Templar wrote: Depends, how easy would it be to get momentum to reverse the decision to leave and rejoin? Not very I imagine.
Besides, any benefit you get from being in the EU can be negotiated with smaller treaties, which also gives more control over what happens.
Regardless of how the vote pans out, the Conservative party grass roots will never forgive those MPs who campaigned to stay in. I can see many of them defecting to UKIP when this is all over.
Da Boss wrote: Aye. I come down on the other side of that argument - I believe a united states of europe is the only way the EU can continue.
The issue is you are trying to jam dozens of countries together into one all at once. Thats not going to work, ever.
The only reason the US actually works is because we built up slowly, from the ground up, over 200 years. Trying to replicate that artificially with established countries, many of which have radically different cultures and languages, is going to result in nothing but tears.
If these pieces of legislation were optional it rather undermines the idea that the UK is subject to brutal interference by edicts from faceless Eurocrats.
But....I never claimed we were?
All new pieces of legislation/extensions of EU authority are subject to sovereign ratification, and thus optional. I know that. I acknowledged it earlier when I mentioned that our politicians were just as culpable for signing off on things without appropriate attention.
Da Boss wrote:Ketara: Kilkrazy and others have explained why having an opt out specially allowed for you is a benefit. You'll either accept that or you won't I guess. In the same way you will either accept that the rebate is a special benefit for the UK or not.
To me, it's really pretty clear, and I find your arguments to the contrary kinda weak.
Frankly, I'm not sure if it's miscommunication or what, but I seem to keep having people place arguments or positions in my mouth. So I might just leave that one there!
Da Boss wrote: Aye. I come down on the other side of that argument - I believe a united states of europe is the only way the EU can continue.
But I share some of the concerns you guys have about it, especially in terms of how decisions are made and democratic structures can be weak at times. Which is why Cameron's renegotiation was such a wasted chance.
Cameron sabotaged the negotiations before they even started. Firstly, he declared he would campaign for an IN vote regardless of how the negotiations played out, so he lost the opportunity to walk away as an act of brinkmanship, and thus increase his bargaining position,
and secondly, he declared he wanted the negotiations to be over within 2 days, so all the other side had to do was wait him out
Da Boss wrote: Aye. I come down on the other side of that argument - I believe a united states of europe is the only way the EU can continue.
The issue is you are trying to jam dozens of countries together into one all at once. Thats not going to work, ever.
The only reason the US actually works is because we built up slowly, from the ground up, over 200 years. Trying to replicate that artificially with established countries, many of which have radically different cultures and languages, is going to result in nothing but tears.
Completely agree.
Thing is, unless we stop the infighting and fething-over each other, I believe europe and its states are going to become weaker and weaker.
Da Boss wrote: Aye. I come down on the other side of that argument - I believe a united states of europe is the only way the EU can continue.
But I share some of the concerns you guys have about it, especially in terms of how decisions are made and democratic structures can be weak at times. Which is why Cameron's renegotiation was such a wasted chance.
A United States of Europe can't work. The problem is the huge difference between the countries. Germany is far at the top of it all, with the UK and parts of Scandinavia / France in support, but that's it for a /long/ time. All eastern countries are just dragged behind in their wake and are insignifant, contributing nothing themselves with the exception of cheap labor and (import) taxes. Greece was accepted despite obviously cheating with their finances and states like Spain and Italy do /terrible/ finance-wise. A union of countries that are so far apart just can't work. The US has / had the advantage of being one region that grew rather organically, but the EU started out fractured. There is nothing to gain from a United States of Europe and it's blatantly obvious to most politicians and people in charge of actually doing stuff. That's why TTIP will, in any form whatsoever, surface. A strong, direct alliance with the US, especially in regards to economics, is the very best bet for anyone (except leftists, but really, who cares?) in the long term. The UK already realized that and is aware of their unique place. Germany holds the same position, or even a stronger one, and if Germany threatened to leave the EU, they could ask for pretty much everything they asked for. In the short term, this would result in financial losses, but in the long term, a US/High-Tier Western countries alliance would be unbreakable.
We've already got one, it's called the Human Rights Act, but because it was brought in to comply with EU legislation on human rights apparently it is bad and should be repealed.
We've already got one, it's called the Human Rights Act, but because it was brought in to comply with EU legislation on human rights apparently it is bad and should be repealed.
One good thing doesn't absolve the rest of the crapstorm the EU is.
IMO, Britain(and everyone else) should leave. And of course make their own Bill of Rights.
If these pieces of legislation were optional it rather undermines the idea that the UK is subject to brutal interference by edicts from faceless Eurocrats.
But....I never claimed we were?
All new pieces of legislation/extensions of EU authority are subject to sovereign ratification, and thus optional. I know that. I acknowledged it earlier when I mentioned that our politicians were just as culpable for signing off on things without appropriate attention.
...
...
Others keep on claiming it.
And I agree with your point about incompetent politicians.
We've already got one, it's called the Human Rights Act, but because it was brought in to comply with EU legislation on human rights apparently it is bad and should be repealed.
One good thing doesn't absolve the rest of the crapstorm the EU is.
IMO, Britain(and everyone else) should leave. And of course make their own Bill of Rights.
I don't know why everyone thinks that the first thing the UK will do if we leave is drop the HRA and go back to the good old days of dragging people out of their homes and shooting them. It would still have to go through Parliament, it wouldn't change that much. If at all.
Having studied a spot or two of economic history, I believe there may be one or two examples to be drawn from what happened when France and other countries began to reject and circumvent the British Smithian opposition to trade barriers in the mid-nineteenth century. Certainly, there should be some useful data there with which to help predict the consequences of Britain's potential trade position when leaving the EU.
My issue with the HRA is the way in which it is sometimes abused by activist judges to circumvent Parliament, and how little emphasis is put on the human rights of victims of crime vs the over emphasis on the human rights of criminals.
...hmmm ...... Realistically a deal like this will have been worked on for ages but timing seems....
..well... who knows.
Another query : During the Scottish ref. I recall one of the arguments being put forward was that if they did go independent there would be issues with the banks as , by law, they're required to have a Head office/equivalent in an EU member state.
Now, assuming this is still the case -- and I haven't heard anything different but, TBH, don't really follow the ins and outs of international banking regulations that much -- said banks would be required to have an HQ in an EU country
-- perhaps say a German city with easy access to financial markets --
so would/will move or at the least set up elsewhere anyway ?
And , of course, if the whole of the UK pulled out, presumably Scotland would lose those banks that stayed due to them staying in the UK ?
reds8n wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35639157
...hmmm ...... Realistically a deal like this will have been worked on for ages but timing seems....
..well... who knows.
That would result in foreign majority control of the FTSE. Bad news frankly.
Capitalism can be a good thing but most countries avoid pure capitalism, including the s and most of Europe. A lot of key UK industries have drifted abroad in merger talks in circumstances where other national governments would have blocked takeover by fiat.
This is big enough that even Cameron and his short term minded cronies might not like that, because the majority of their paymasters in the City wont like it either.
Deutsche Borshe, the proposed senior partner is a third of the size of the LSE. Agreeing to this is a crazy talk move similar to the takeover of RMC by Cemex in 2005, a classic case study of a much larger company being taken over by a smaller one, that couldn't actually afford it but happened because the share price was currently lower than expected it made a quick profit for some investors.
In any other western country there would have been a block of sale at governmental leve, but in the UK short term profit reigns.
Do not be surprised if the talks end quietly, after all its a third attempt.
..... so.. back in the 90s there was a -- very good -- TV comedy show called The Day Today.
Quite ahead of its time in some ways, not least in its use of ridiculous graphics and essentially pointless " what the people think" features and so on.
There have already been calls to abrogate the Human Rights Act for the reasons that Shadow Captain Edithrae outlined above, and also complaints that the Human Rights Act was forced on the UK by the EU.
If there are defects in the HRA, these do not have to be addressed by leaving the EU.
I see the common misconception about the Human Rights Act is being repeated here. HRA has nothing to do with EU, it is to comply with the European Court of Human Rights, which is a separate institution. Even Russia and Turkey are members.
It is a convention, there's no formal requirement. Anyway, leaving ECHR would look really bad. Do you really want to be country that says that the human rights requirements that Turkey and Russia have agreed to are too strident for you? What's next, deratifying Geneva Conventions?
So, is it the "ECHR" judges that (according to the papers) keep on overruling UK court decisions?
Or is it EU judges?
And yeah, just to state again, because we're on page 9, a lot of the questions I'm asking are not because of my own personal belief, but more me trying to find the root of the common complaints I'd hear in the pub.
Probably ECHR judges most of the time. European Court of Justice (the EU institution) deals only with interpretation of EU law. You cannot appeal decisions of national courts to ECJ.
Technically its the ECtHR that the Judges belong too. They enact the ECHR which explains the t in the name.
Basically, they inact rulings against "bad laws". For example.
The UK used to ban the import of sex dolls. This is against the free movement of goods and services. But you are allowed to deviate on 'moral grounds.' Sex dolls were immoral, or so the UK said.
The judges on the ECtHR said that because Britain was selling sex dolls made in the UK, the moral arguement was invalid so they couldn't bad the imports.
That's basically how the courts get about making the countries fall in line with the convention.
Ah my bad. The ECtHR only applies to human rights cases. It is in fact the ECJ that deals with the rest.
Same laws apply though. Do something against the convention and the ECtHR will make you fix it. Technically I suppose it would be possible to tell them to sod off. Its not like they have an army or anything to make you do it.
It is a convention, there's no formal requirement. Anyway, leaving ECHR would look really bad. Do you really want to be country that says that the human rights requirements that Turkey and Russia have agreed to are too strident for you? What's next, deratifying Geneva Conventions?
They agreed to it but ignore it when convenient in practice, so that comparison is laughable. Comparing the United Kingdom to Turkey and Russia is asinine.
It is a convention, there's no formal requirement. Anyway, leaving ECHR would look really bad. Do you really want to be country that says that the human rights requirements that Turkey and Russia have agreed to are too strident for you? What's next, deratifying Geneva Conventions?
They agreed to it but ignore it when convenient in practice, so that comparison is laughable. Comparing the United Kingdom to Turkey and Russia is asinine.
Agreed. Most of the cases that the ECtHR deal with come from Turkey and Russia.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here we go. I found a nice table.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the ECHR is not part of the EU then it's not part of the topic of this thread.
Spoiling my fun.
But it's true, if the UK leaves the EU we still remain accountable to the ECHR, so no need to worry about the Tories removing the right to habeous corpous.
That point is relevant to the thread on the grounds that if you dislike the EU because of the Human Rights Act, and want to leave the EU in order to get rid of it, you're on the wrong track.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Instead, like I said earlier, we'll get a gutter war. Out voters will be branded little Englanders and xenophobes. In voters will be accused of being on the EU payroll. The debate will suffer, and the big ideas will go out the window.
From now until June, all you'll hear from IN is jobs jobs jobs. Economy. Economy. Economy.
and from the Out side: Migrants. Migrants. Migrants. 55 million a day. 55 million a day.
I love political debate, but even for me, this referendum is getting FETHING depressing...and it's just started...
I fear you are right. Like you, I am voting Leave but I remain to be convinced of the unique benefits of staying. Can't see either side engaging in a positive campaign though. And any other results beyond a colossal landslide for either side will mean that this decision will be a sore point for years and, no doubt, bitter recriminations.
I don't think there are any unique benefits of staying. After all, everything that we do in cooperation with the EU is stuff we could do by individual treaties. Basically it's all under one treaty at the moment and that saves a lot of trouble.
After leaving, though, we probably would continue to make treaties with the EU, to avoid having to make treaties with all the individual member nations. Obviously we would have to make separate treaties with places like Switzerland and Norway, who at the moment deal with us mainly via the EU. In fact, these countries are a good model for how to deal with the EU while not a member.
However I don't think there are any unique benefits of leaving either.
I say this in reply to zedmeister, Kilkrazy, or anybody else in this discusion.
Regardless if you're IN or OUT, this is a once in a generation opportunity for somebody to stand up and present a bold vision for Britain's future for the next 40-50 years.
We face economic challenges from the rising nations of India, China, Brazil etc etc, so will we adapt our economy our change our education system to cope with these?
Security issues will dominate as they always do (Russia, Middle East, North Korea, terrorism etc)
Climate change and demographic problems affecting Britain, will also have to be addressed.
And in Britain itself, the problems of Scottish nationalism, the concentration of power in London, an unelected house of lords, and the erosion of civil liberties will present further challenges.
Now, some of these do not concern the EU, but most are effected by it.
We need a leader or a political party to rise to face these challanges. Instead, we have idiots like Cameron and Osborne working for their friends in the city of London, buffoons like Boris Johnson fawned over by a media populated by lackeys, and lame ducks like Jeremy Corbyn who can't even run his own party, never mind the UK. and something called the Lib Dems who would sell their grandmothers for a whiff of power.
No wonder I'm depressed, beause this referendum is a golden opportunity that will be squandered to settle an internal squabble that's being going on in the Tory party since the 1970s.
In the stay camp: At this stage, it's only really the EU keeping the Tories in check, when we leave, it's going to get awful.
In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.
In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.
Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.
We've already got one, it's called the Human Rights Act, but because it was brought in to comply with EU legislation on human rights apparently it is bad and should be repealed.
Actually its because the human Rights Act is heavily lobsided. It means that dangerous terrorist sympathisers that arrived illegally have a right to a family life and cant be deported but actual human rights like a right to silence or right to free speech are largely missing and the courts dont care.
I don't blame the EU for that though, I blame New Labour. But the EU prevents us from reforming.
The Human Rights Act brings UK law into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights (1949.) This predates the formation of the EU and is not administered by the EU but by the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe.
if the UK left the EU it would not affect the HRA at all, and we would still be under obligations to the Council of Europe..
Kilkrazy wrote: The Human Rights Act brings UK law into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights (1949.) This predates the formation of the EU and is not administered by the EU but by the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe.
Not really. the Uk was a founding signatory of the 1949 ECHR and it has been binding on us throughout.
The Human Rights Act catalogued what the human rights that mattered to the (New Labour) government were. Free speech is not on the list.
In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.
Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.
I don't think the Independence supporters will vote no just to get another referendum. But generally, England and Scotland have very different political leanings and if they naturally vote differently, it might be enough to trigger it.
In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.
Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.
I don't think the Independence supporters will vote no just to get another referendum. But generally, England and Scotland have very different political leanings and if they naturally vote differently, it might be enough to trigger it.
Funnily enough, the Northern Irish are even more pro-EU then the Scottish. So there's no way we could justify giving Scotland another referendum without turning our attention to Ireland first.
You know, I do wonder, if the results come back and we either stay or Scotland/England are reasonably close in which way they voted, what issue the independence bandwagon is going to jump onto next as justification for another one...
In the go camp: This should be enough to trigger a new Scottish Independence referrendum, and ideally would allow us to break away from the Tories and re-join the EU. Win-WIn.
Well, the Scottish independence supporters tactically voting for leave really isn't a great plan, as the whole argument for another referendum relies on Scotland voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK votes differently.
I don't think the Independence supporters will vote no just to get another referendum. But generally, England and Scotland have very different political leanings and if they naturally vote differently, it might be enough to trigger it.
Funnily enough, the Northern Irish are even more pro-EU then the Scottish. So there's no way we could justify giving Scotland another referendum without turning our attention to Ireland first.
You know, I do wonder, if the results come back and we either stay or Scotland/England are reasonably close in which way they voted, what issue the independence bandwagon is going to jump onto next as justification for another one...
In a democracy, Ketara, the justification for anything is when the people demand it.
I don't believe in triggers for another independence referendum. It'll happen when people want it to happen. As silly as it sounds, if the Scottish people want an independence referendum every week for a hundred years, it'll happen. Similarly, they may decided not to have one for a million years.
You could equally ask what the justification is for this EU referendum. After all, the Tories only got 25% of the vote last election. That's not a majority in anybody's book, and yes I know we have a FPTP system.
Democracy is a living, breathing thing. Government of the people for the people by the people. You, I, and everybody else decides when things happen.
In a democracy, Ketara, the justification for anything is when the people demand it.
I don't believe in triggers for another independence referendum. It'll happen when people want it to happen. As silly as it sounds, if the Scottish people want an independence referendum every week for a hundred years, it'll happen. Similarly, they may decided not to have one for a million years.
Sorry, but to me, it does sound a little silly. 'The Scottish people' Who decides what 'the Scottish people' want? As I pointed out earlier, a vote for the SNP does not necessarily equate to a vote for another referendum unless you twist the logic so badly it turns corkscrew shaped. How do you differentiate between 'the people' wanting another referendum, and a group of extremely loud activists? Do you have a referendum on whether you want another referendum?
If some people got to have an independence referendum weekly, then the rest of us would get to have a referendum weekly on whether or not to stick those people on a one-way boat to Svalbard. Because quite frankly, it isn't fair on the rest of the electorate (and that includes people in Scotland) to constantly push the expense and uncertainty of a new referendum on them every other year until independence pushers get the 'right' result (in their eyes). I mean, if independence was granted, would they be quite so permissive of a new referendum every two years to see if Scotland wanted to rejoin? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
I know I said I wouldn't comment on the Scottish thing in here again, but it keeps floating to the surface, and it's starting to hack me off a bit. I don't particularly like the current Government, and it would be wonderful if every major policy was in line with exactly what I wanted, but that's life. I think a number of people (not necessarily pointing to anyone on here) need to accept that democracy didn't go the way they wanted this time around, and wait until the time is next right again (if it ever is) without trying to insert a new independence referendum into every single political issue that comes up.
If we have a ridiculously high voting difference between England and Scotland on this particular issue (say 25% plus) then yes, perhaps that would be grounds for commissioning a report to see if enough people felt the difference justified another referendum. Because as Da Boss indicated above, a voting difference does not necessarily equate to people wanting yet another referendum. But I really, really doubt that's going to happen.
All of your points are valid, Ketara and I agree with the vast majority of them, but the system is what it is (unless the people want it changed) and I believe the following hypothetical examples are fair and valid under our current democratic system. YMMV.
1) The Scottish Parliament elections are in May. If the SNP say vote for us, and we'll push for another referendum, and the SNP win their projected landslide, another referendum is fine by me.
2) Jeremy Corbyn says make me PM in 2020 and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and Corbyn becomes PM with a majority and does what he says he 's going to do, fine by me.
3) Out loses the EU referendum and UKIP says vote for us in 2020 and we'll pull out of Europe, and UKIP win a majority, fine by me.
As long as the voters know exactly what they're getting before they step into the polling booth, I don't have a problem with another referendum down the line or this and that happening. It's democracy.
1) The Scottish Parliament elections are in May. If the SNP say vote for us, and we'll push for another referendum, and the SNP win their projected landslide, another referendum is fine by me.
I disagree quite strongly on this point. They can push for one, certainly (I doubt any power on earth can stop them), but that doesn't mean they should be granted one. To copypaste from earlier:-
Secondly, this thing about, 'If a party gets elected to the Scottish Parliament with a subsection of their manifesto being "have another indy referendum" it has to be held or democracy is being thwarted' is inaccurate. Many parties put lots of things in their manifesto which are ignored by them after seizing power, and people vote for parties for many reasons other than a specific clause in a manifesto. Equating a vote for a party with a wholehearted endorsement of every item on their manifesto is plain daft.
A manifesto is a statement of intent. Nothing more, nothing less. If the party gets in and chooses to press for an indy ref, then that's their choice, but it still remains up to the will of the democratic majority of the UK as to whether or not it happens. Under UK law, only Westminster can authorise referendums. What the SNP chooses to campaign for is entirely their department. But they do not have the legal power or right to hold an indy ref, anymore than an elected councillor has the right to enforce an 'Invade Norway' part of their personal manifesto when elected. It's simply not up to them, and the people voting for them are not necessarily supporting every aspect of their manifesto.
2) Jeremy Corbyn says make me PM in 2020 and I'll scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO, and Corbyn becomes PM with a majority and does what he says he 's going to do, fine by me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to insist that there be a referendum on Trident and NATO? Rather than independence? Because as Corbyn can only get in with heavy Scottish support, why would there be a mandate for a referendum on Scottish independence in this scenario? He'd be there with as much Scottish support as from anyone else, and that's an issue that affects the whole country. It feels like another indyref is just being crowbarred in on the basis that it's a major policy change, and all such changes must now automatically be met with an indyref.
3) Out loses the EU referendum and UKIP says vote for us in 2020 and we'll pull out of Europe, and UKIP win a majority, fine by me.
As long as the voters know exactly what they're getting before they step into the polling booth, I don't have a problem with another referendum down the line or this and that happening. It's democracy.
Again here. It automatically assumes that the difference between Scottish/all other voters is significant enough to warrant another referendum, and that a massive portion of people consider the issue important enough to be worth splitting on.
I don't want to sound aggressive/rude to you here Do_I_Not_Like_That, as you've been nothing but a gentleman in discussing this. So please don't take it the wrong way when I say that the viewpoint above it exactly what bothers me. It's this idea that an 'indyref' is the normal response to any major policy change, the assumption that the 'Scottish people' will consider every potential event to be one worth leaving over. When it is just that, an assumption, and what's more, one based on a further assumption that Scotland will vote substantially differently to everyone else.
Now I'm not ruling that out as 'Will never happen', but I take the stance that if it does, we'll deal with it then at that stage. There's no need to frame every debate around the assumption that those two variables have already been ticked. Viewing and discussing every single prospect of a major policy shift through the lens of 'A new Scottish indyref might have to be held' just feels like a massive distraction from the actual potential policy shift itself. And it worries me that within a year, the indyref campaign has essentially switched onto the EU referendum as the next step to 'correct' the result of the last one. It worries me that this is going to be the norm, and repeated ad infinitum every single general election and policy shift.
And frankly, I don't have the energy to be reading and arguing about it that often!
I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.
And the same goes for UKIP on the UKIP point I made.
Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.
I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.
I see.
In that case, I apologise, I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying there.
Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.
I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.
In that case, you and I disagree on nothing. Pint at Salute?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I should have been more clearer on that Corbyn point. I don't want the Scottish referendum tacked onto a NATO/Trident decision, I'm just saying that Corbyn would have a justified mandate for scrapping Trident/ withdrawing from NATO, if he won a majority from campaigning on that issue at a General Election.
I see.
In that case, I apologise, I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying there.
Getting back to your original point, it may surprise you to know that I don't agree with the idea that the EU referendum vote is a justification for another Scottish independence referendum, even though I'm an independence supporter.
I believe that the merits of Scottish independence speak for themselves, and that Scotland will be independent if and when it should choose to be.
In that case, you and I disagree on nothing. Pint at Salute?
We'd better get back OT, Ketara, but you're forgetting one important thing: the reason the SNP are banging on about another Scottish referendum resulting from the EU referendum, is party politics. The SNP are just doing what any good party would do in their position - reminding people they're there, and trying to be awkward. It's just party politics and if it annoys people in England, it only helps the SNP
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Aye, but I used to live in Essex. Got to meet up with Ketara for a few games of 40k the one time.
Scotland is lovely though - met my Fiancee in Edinburgh.
Whereabouts in Scotland are you? 'Cause if it's Glasgow, I'll be heading up there in November for a few weeks for some research and a wargaming weekend.
Da Boss wrote: Ah jaysus, I'd love to chat about this with a pint with you guys. Making me nostalgic for living in Engerland!
I have a feeling ol' Angleland hasn't seen the last of you yet.....
Kilkrazy wrote: It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.
If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.
I think the price of Zimbabwean potatoes is connected to the EU due to the CAP. This thread is now about potatoes.
I expected a response like that. Its a 'flying spaghetti monster' reply, an absurdity the proponent likely doesn't actually believe in that everyone is expected to respect as equal to any other belief choice.
This thread is not about Zimbabwean potatoes.
There are people out there who think the ECHR is a part of the EU, its a reasonable mistake to make and explaining the difference is a reasonable and valid thread comment
The CAP fething over Africa big time is also very much related to the EU. You're right that people get the ECJ and the EU mixed up, but the difference between the two has already been covered.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's irrelevant to the EU debate, and off topic.
If some people think the Human Rights Act is connected to EU membership its a relevant factor , whether you or I agree with their premise or not.
It's not a matter of personal agreement, because this is not a premise.
The HRA is not connected with EU membership. This is a clear fact that has been stated three times so far.
How many more times does the same fact have to be repeated for people to accept it? There comes a point where you have to give up and pass on to another topic.
Perhaps I should write a copy-and-paste fact sheet about it that I can use every few posts.
This is part of why I find this whole referendum so depressing. A lot of people are going to make a decision not based on facts or reasonable deductions from facts, but based on lies they've been told by various people and newspapers.
Agreed. This referendum will be decided on lies, deceit and gut instinct. Many people do believe that the Human Rights Act and the Convention of Human Rights are tied in with membership of the EU, and leaving the EU will also cause the HRA to be appealed. It won't. Anyone who thinks so is wrong and must be told so.
Except I highly doubt anyone will bring is up in a debate because it could badly affect both sides. People afraid of voting out because they are afraid of a Tory dictatorship might then vote out because they know that the HRA will still stand until the government gets around to appealing it.
Whereas people who are only voting out to get rid of the HRA might then vote in because it will remain in place regardless of what side they go for.
Well, looks like the mirrors have cracked and the smoke machine broke on Cameron's EU non-deal.
Members of the European Parliament today (24 February) cast doubt on Prime Minister David Cameron’s deal to curb EU migrant benefits, raising the possibility of voting down the emergency brake after the 23 June referendum on Britain’s membership of the bloc.
Also, this quote from Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister that I saw doing the rounds just makes a mockery of Cameron:
“the real debate was about there being benefits which workers do not pay for, but for which they are nonetheless eligible. The question was what should happen with benefits paid to third-country nationals, for which no contributions are paid in Britain. Here, too, we have succeeded in ensuring that these social benefits cannot be taken away… This means that we have even succeeded in protecting benefits which people working in the United Kingdom did not pay for in the form of contributions.”
Can't blame Orban here - he's looking out for his own. Can't really say that about Cameron though. Unless you mean looking out for just his cronies.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!"
There's been a lot of talk about people being de-registered from the electoral roll, so I got on the dog and bone to find out if I had been affected by the new changes. Luckily, I'm fine, but If people here are not sure, give them a bell. Doesn't even take two minutes.
Don't lose your chance to vote - you've got until mid-May or something to register for the June 23rd vote. Plenty of time.
Da Boss wrote:Aye, but I used to live in Essex. Got to meet up with Ketara for a few games of 40k the one time.
Scotland is lovely though - met my Fiancee in Edinburgh.
Mrs.deadnight is a native of that wonderful city too. And apparently, I am now a leither.
T
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I prefer Glasgow to Edinburgh
Poor deluded fool!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm in the Dundee area - bit of a trek to Glasgow.
Anyway, let's get back OT.
Dundee? Even worse! :p
Off topic, but we need to do a thing now. Common ground games at Stirling?
But on topic: as an Irish, I'm a little bit concerned of the potential consequences of the U.K. Leaving the eu on Northern Ireland. I'd rather in, personally, but then again, I'm an Irish guy living in Scotland - I'm used to the idea of a bunch of foreigners with funny accents legislating around me, and again, considering I'm Irish, not too fond of the idea of leaving 'my own people' in charge, considering the mess they made of the old country,
As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?
The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.
Whatever the age threshold for elections is set at, there'll always be people who just miss that threshold and therefore are not eligible to vote. If you lower it to 16, then you'll have people complaining that 15 year olds are missing out. I missed the chance to chance to vote in the 2010 General Election by two weeks, as my birthday is on May 22.
And not being eligible to vote doesn't mean you have no say, you can still campaign.
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?
The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.
I don't know. As an adult, I'm entirely comfortable with under 18's not having the vote. I'm not so far removed from it that I don't remember the fact that most 16 & 17 year olds I knew had the political awareness of a chipmunk (and that's including the ones taking Politics at A level). Not that the 18 and 19 year olds were much better, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you're going to lower it, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15?
I acknowledge if you're interested, it must feel quite patronising and unnecessarily restrictive, but then again, not being able to buy alcohol also feels that way at 17. You're more or less at the point where your cognitive skills are reaching/have reached their full potential, so it all seems inherently unfair. Unfortunately, whilst the reasoning skills tend to be peaking, in terms of empirical experience and maturity, someone under 18 is nowhere near a full baked adult. Certain parts of the brain don't even finish developing until you hit 21.
I don't say this to condescend, more to justify my belief that 18 years is as good an age as any to set the vote at, alongside drinking and various other activities.
Yeah, you might be a good and upstanding politically minded 17 year old, but how many of your peers are of the same cloth? Many of the 16-17 year olds can't be trusted to maintain the same decision for more than a few weeks. Me included.
