Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
......








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.

 reds8n wrote:

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.

 reds8n wrote:

..... I ...

..well..


..... guess that's Eurovision sorted then

Oh God, no.

 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

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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.

You could always create your own Bill of Rights.

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.

 reds8n wrote:
......

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Ha, ha! You have rednecks, too!

 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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could always create your own Bill of Rights.

I've been saying this for years, and whenever the subject is raised, our politicians always mumble an excuse not to do it.

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.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

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.

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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

What an idiot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could always create your own Bill of Rights.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could always create your own Bill of Rights.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could always create your own Bill of Rights.

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.

Ahem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

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.