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.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The answer is number two. He's decided that being labor leader is more important than standing up for his beliefs. But I wouldn't expect anything less from the thing.

And the votes for prisoners thing is another bug bear of mine with the EU. They try to say that only a complete blanket ban is unacceptable and that if we just gave the vote back to non violent offenders serving less than three months that would be enough to meet the terms. But the though of anyone in prison getting a vote sickens me. The whole point of prison is you're being punished. You need to repay that debt before you get that privilege back. And who the hell wants prisoners as a voting block for politicians to pander to?

Which is "funny" because I doubt anyone would pander to violent offenders anyway, that would be political suicide. The prisoners I wouldn't want voting would be ones committing non-violent crimes like fraud, election fraud etc because those are the sort of people politicians might try and rewrite the rules for.

The only point I've seen from Remain that makes me want to vote that way is the issue that non-EU members with trading agreements have to suck up EU rules with no say in the matter, if anything was going to persuade me to vote Remain, it's that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No argument there.

Either way though, we will not be withdrawing from the EU within this Parliament even with a vote to Leave no matter how strong the margin. The current Members of Parliament just will not have it, they'll obfuscate and dither and put up as many barriers as they can to kick the issue into the long grass for as long as they can.

Folks might have seen that there will be a substantial group of MPs who, should there be a Brexit vote, will campaign to be part of the EU trade group. Even with a Brexit vote, there will be no particular mandate against their doing so, as there is no unanimity among the Brexit politicians of what kind of trade agreements they would institute.

There might be advantages in doing so; it might prick the hubris of people like Juncker, and reduce the intimidation of, for instance, the Greek government. So, rather than hastening the end of the EU, it might stimulate reform.

But of course, while the EU may be better off in this scenario, the Brits will be worse off, as we will be paying into the EU for access to the market, without a say in regulations. And we would have to accept free movement of workers - which is the hot issue for many voters, even if it's one largely generated by Farage and the Express's race-baiting.

So...

The timetable looks like

1) Referendum
2) In or Out, tory party rips itself to pieces
3) Legal challenge to result of referendum due to massive foul up of voter registration and the possibly legally dubious extension. Referendum result ruled void.
4) Some form of no confidence vote in parliament
5) General election. With infighting within all political parties at various levels, Coalition government again
6) No new referendum

Seem likely?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:But of course, while the EU may be better off in this scenario, the Brits will be worse off, as we will be paying into the EU for access to the market, without a say in regulations. And we would have to accept free movement of workers - which is the hot issue for many voters, even if it's one largely generated by Farage and the Express's race-baiting.

Baragash wrote:The only point I've seen from Remain that makes me want to vote that way is the issue that non-EU members with trading agreements have to suck up EU rules with no say in the matter, if anything was going to persuade me to vote Remain, it's that.

This is what is persuaded me to vote Remain.

I'm also not convinced by the plans, if any, made by the Leave campaigners are going to work out for us long-term. I think Norway and Switzerland take in more immigrants as a percentage than the UK (although this could be due to population size).

The worst example someone who is voting Leave said to me was that the USA doesn't accept free movement of people to trade with the EU. Two issues with that - the first being it is not in the continent of Europe so is under no obligation to accept European citizens and the second being that unlike the UK, the USA is a super power (on par with the entirety of the EU, Russia and the emerging China/India/Brazil) so can dictate terms more than the UK could.

This is the biggest reason to vote leave in my opinion! I don't care so much about immigrants into the UK. Sovereignty is a weak argument as has been said, to continue trading with EU on equal terms requires giving this up anyway. Lack of independent law making is a farce because all EU laws have to be ratified by parliament and they rarely vote them down anyway and by and large most of them are good things for the general populace.

But TTIP is just scandalous and once I understood what it meant it made sense why Obama was wading into this debate in his clumsy yes we can feth you up attitude.

The Conservatives are very pro-TTIP anyway, and arguably a trans-EU public reaction would be more likely to stop it, so IMO TTIP is actually a non-issue as far as the Referendum is concerned.

 Baragash wrote:
The Conservatives are very pro-TTIP anyway, and arguably a trans-EU public reaction would be more likely to stop it, so IMO TTIP is actually a non-issue as far as the Referendum is concerned.

Green party spokeswoman: "on both ISDS and transparency in TTIP we have seen progress at EU level, following the concerted efforts of engaged MEPs, campaigners and a better informed public. " As in, the EU is the main group fighting for limits.

In contrast, Gove attacked charities like War On Want for 'scaremongering' on TTIP, in his role as Tory Whip.

http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/2016/03/01/opposing-ttip-shouldnt-make-you-a-eurosceptic/

TTIP isn't set in stone. In addition, it has to be agreed by all 28 member states and the big names, including the UK, France and Germany, have issues with it.

In the case of Brexit, the UK would be influenced by the TTIP if it wants to continue trading with the EU and USA, without getting a say to stop or change how it works.

The only way to stop the UK being affected by TTIP in the case of Brexit is to not trade with the USA or EU, in which case say goodbye to 63% of all trade and a lot of businesses who relocate to countries where they can make more profit.

In short, the TTIP is a bad reason for wanting to leave.

Two interesting, and passionate, articles in the Spectator today:

Six best reasons to vote Remain

Six best reasons to vote Leave

Thought it was an interesting read, though slightly disappointed that the Remain author wasted one of the points to accuse Leavers as being borderline racists though :(

I think that, at the end of the day, the don't knows will swing it. Those decided on either Remain or Leave are unlikely to be swayed at this point. Watch out for more extreme rhetoric. Speaking of which, there was a piece in the telegraph today by one of Thatchers ex-ministers and he laments (and lambastes Cameron) for the extremist rhetoric used. I think both sides would find something in there to agree with:

“I thought that when he called the referendum, probably we were going to have a sensible, if not an intellectual, debate about the pros and cons of the EU.

“And I do believe that if they had set off to set out what they saw of the advantages and the disadvantages on the other side, and it had been a balanced debate, then they would quite easily have come out with a Remain conclusion.”

However, he warned: “They launched very early into this attack, this description of all the horrors that would happen if we exit. I just listed to this and thought, ‘this is complete nonsense’.”

I know that the US is a super power and all, but I think we can get a good deal of we just had a decent negotiator in the chair. For too long we've had a trend of prime ministers who've effectively sold us out for personal gain to better their international image.

^

Good articles. But I'm tried of being called a xenophobe by remainers.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I know that the US is a super power and all, but I think we can get a good deal of we just had a decent negotiator in the chair. For too long we've had a trend of prime ministers who've effectively sold us out for personal gain to better their international image.

^

Good articles. But I'm tried of being called a xenophobe by remainers.

I agree and it was one of the first points I mentioned in this thread. I may not have agreed with Thatcher's principles, but I respected her for standing by her beliefs even when things went south.

I don't trust Cameron to lead us into a good deal post-Brexit. Or any candidate we have.

 zedmeister wrote:
Two interesting, and passionate, articles in the Spectator today:

Six best reasons to vote Remain

Six best reasons to vote Leave

Thought it was an interesting read, though slightly disappointed that the Remain author wasted one of the points to accuse Leavers as being borderline racists though :(

I thought the remain article was crap TBH, and his response at the bottom of the Leave article is factually inaccurate in a "wait, you get paid to be a journalist/writer?!" way.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't trust Cameron to lead us into a good deal post-Brexit. Or any candidate we have.

That's an argument that is a good counter to the "Remain and fight for reform" position: Do we or will we have an individual who is strong enough and has the political will to fight and carry out that reform. I look at the current shower in Parliament and conclude: No


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:


I thought the remain article was crap TBH, and his response at the bottom of the Leave article is factually inaccurate in a "wait, you get paid to be a journalist/writer?!" way.

It's one of the better ones I've seen, but I agree in that it was a more of an attack Leave article instead of a "This is why remaining is good" line.

 zedmeister wrote:
It's one of the better ones I've seen, but I agree in that it was a more of an attack Leave article instead of a "This is why remaining is good" line.

I just realised you got the links the wrong way round

1) Regulation. This isn't a reason to remain, it's an argument not to use regulation as an excuse to leave. Except it doesn't address the fundamental issue with regulation about whether it's necessary and how distantly from the average voter it's being decided, so it isn't even a good counter-point.

2) Is there even a point here? If there is I think it's objectively incorrect - the closer voters are to those who make laws, the easier it is to influence and change the law makers. Just because we collectively don't know or won't agree on what we want isn't a good argument for not reducing the distance between voter and law-maker.

3) Is anyone actually blaming Europe for most of the things listed? I haven't seen it myself. Sure, he has a point that most of those things are a result of domestic Government, but if Europe hadn't signed up to this austerity bs it would have been much harder for the Tories to sell it in coalition. If it wasn't for Hitler, I'd be calling it the most evil thing I'm aware of Germany doing.

4) Do I need to even go into this one? Kettle calling frying pan......

5) Presumably the Greeks are over-flowing with co-operation? Wait, didn't you just call all the Leavers racist, that sounds a bit, what was the word...."rancid"? Didn't you just ad hominem a load of Leavers? Are you even reading your own article? Da fuq?

6) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/05/common-agricultural-policy-rotten

Just to be clear, I'm not picking on it because it's a Remain article, it's just bad, and one of the things winding me up about the whole referendum is the complete lack of quality output - this one just really rustled my jimmies.

 Baragash wrote:


I just realised you got the links the wrong way round

Oh bugger.

Well, corrected now...

I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)

Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.

Interesting.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/08/britains-defiant-judges-fight-back-against-europes-imperial-cour/

 Compel wrote:
I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)

Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.

*Insert rant about Media being controlled by the government."

 Compel wrote:
I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)

Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.

I've tried to bring it up, and mostly been met with complete dismissal of everything in it--not refutation, a simple 'Nah, won't happen' after a cursory glance--an unwillingness to read it/claims of "I'll read it later", or an abrupt change of topic.

 notprop wrote:
Interesting.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/08/britains-defiant-judges-fight-back-against-europes-imperial-cour/

Aye, I knew this already from doing European Union Law. They are superior to every single one of our courts. And the protocol 30 was gak from the day it was signed, Blair knew exactly what it meant.

Well. The latest TV debate is more of the same.

Remain target Johnson rather than backing up their own reasons.

Brexit bang on about taking back control.

Nothing of real import talked about as yet.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)

Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.

I've tried to bring it up, and mostly been met with complete dismissal of everything in it--not refutation, a simple 'Nah, won't happen' after a cursory glance--an unwillingness to read it/claims of "I'll read it later", or an abrupt change of topic.

It is too complex for journalists to turn intro bite sized morsels for us plebs to digest.

I have brought it up in conversation with remain campaigners. I get the feeling that activists on both sides have no real idea that full federalisation is a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Interesting.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/08/britains-defiant-judges-fight-back-against-europes-imperial-cour/

Aye, I knew this already from doing European Union Law. They are superior to every single one of our courts. And the protocol 30 was gak from the day it was signed, Blair knew exactly what it meant.

The postscript of the article is another indictment of the nature of EU bureaucracy. We should be very afraid that EU institutions can abuse their powers to silence Journalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently its a lie that Turkey will be joining the EU.......

Am I right in understanding that the remain side believe that any British politician would be stupid enough to remove any rights that have already been granted? Doing so would be career suicide surely?

 statu wrote:
Am I right in understanding that the remain side believe that any British politician would be stupid enough to remove any rights that have already been granted? Doing so would be career suicide surely?

On the basis of comments made on the debate...The EU are also the only thing standing between the Tories and the return of women having to stay at home.

Giselle Stuart had a good debate I thought.

From what I've seen of that debate it was a lot of attacking Boris personally rather than debating the issue. There's only so many times (three I counted in the highlights) you can shout about Boris wanting to be Prime Minister before it looks like you've got nothing but personal attacks. Waste of time. For a start, I don't think its news to anyone that Boris would like to be PM - many don't care or would even like him more than Cameron!

Leave totally won that tv debate, all the remains could bring up was personal attacks on boris and economic "experts" who missed/got wrong all the last few major economic problems. (Euro/crash/emf) of which as a country we followed one which was the emf which nearly bankurped the country.

Oh the ins also went on about the 350mill figure. And even got schooled on that. They were just embarssing to see.

BBC have it as £350m + gross!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

It’s been the case for awhile that all the remain camp have been able to do is attack the people of the leave camp – this has just become more apparent when it’s in a concentrated block like a TV debate.

It’s a failing strategy however, if all you can do is attack you’re opposition then people will start to think that you can’t actually come up with a good argument to remain.

I only watched part of the debate, but what I did see was out showing how a vote to leave could be good for the country – and in yelling that a vote out would be good for Boris, what nobody seemed to be doing was showing why a vote to remain would be a good thing for anyone.

Stranger83 wrote:
It’s been the case for awhile that all the remain camp have been able to do is attack the people of the leave camp – this has just become more apparent when it’s in a concentrated block like a TV debate.

It’s a failing strategy however, if all you can do is attack you’re opposition then people will start to think that you can’t actually come up with a good argument to remain.

I only watched part of the debate, but what I did see was out showing how a vote to leave could be good for the country – and in yelling that a vote out would be good for Boris, what nobody seemed to be doing was showing why a vote to remain would be a good thing for anyone.

Well, for starters, you can fly to Mallorca for 40 quid instead of 200. You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the UK as a whole. Your granny can live in Andalucia and still get UK pensions and access to health care without extra costs. You can easily go to other European countries, study there, work there and come back anytime you like. You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
You are also working on developping poorer European countries, making them less susceptible to crime, civil unrest or even war in the process. You can adress international issues through an international system that is a bit more than just "the heads of all involved states".
You can buy European wares cheaper. Your business will profit a lot from having more contintental European customers. Your business also gets required workers more easily. Your culture is getting infused with new ideas faster. If Germany wants to push their car industry further into the world, you actually might have a veto in that - or get something nice and shiny YOUR government wants in return for being OK with it.

It think that are just some of the benefits.

Of course there are the damages of leaving, as well, and there are important negative sides with staying, which have already been discussed with various states of rationality.

I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?

My suggestion: Some time ago (in the 1970s), British people (or at least their leaders) thought it was a brilliant idea to become more European. 1. Ask yourself why. 2. See where your country has gone from that point on. 3. Make a decision if you want to continue that way, or at least keep what you got out of it, or not.

What the British people voted to join in the 70s and what has been created by the likes of Maastricht and the completely anti-democratic bs that is Lisbon are two very, very different things.

 treslibras wrote:

Well, for starters, you can fly to Mallorca for 40 quid instead of 200. You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the UK as a whole. Your granny can live in Andalucia and still get UK pensions and access to health care without extra costs. You can easily go to other European countries, study there, work there and come back anytime you like. You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
You are also working on developping poorer European countries, making them less susceptible to crime, civil unrest or even war in the process. You can adress international issues through an international system that is a bit more than just "the heads of all involved states".
You can buy European wares cheaper. Your business will profit a lot from having more contintental European customers. Your business also gets required workers more easily. Your culture is getting infused with new ideas faster. If Germany wants to push their car industry further into the world, you actually might have a veto in that - or get something nice and shiny YOUR government wants in return for being OK with it.

Cheap flights to Malaga wills till be there if we Leave. That's dependent on the budget airlines and not whether you're in the EU zone or not. A quick check shows that a flight to Sweden is roughly the same as a flight to Norway. Or a flight to Morocco is about the same as a flight to Italy.

The City will be fine should we leave. It deals with worldwide commerce, not just EU commerce.

"My Granny" could still live in Andalusia. Plenty of British expats live in non-eu countries and still get healthcare and pension benefits. They'd just need to take extra steps to become residents (something they should really do if they're planning on permanently live in an EU country anyway)

Granted on the ease of studying in an EU country. But again, not insurmountable.

This bit made me laugh and I have to pull you up on it:

You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.

Peace and prosperity NATO is the reason that peace exists. Also, there's the small matter of those attacks in Belgium and Germany as well as the Ukraine debacle. And, as for prosperity, please tell that to Greece. Or Italy. Or Spain. Finally, that "help" comes at a price as Greece discovered.

I agree that nations need help, but shovelling cash at poorer states is not necessarily a good way to go. And we should be able to choose, as a nation, whom we help and how we help them. As for the supposed advantages of collective bargaining that the EU gives, this picture is how I percieve it:


Also, as has been shown, we buy much less from the EU as time goes on.

Finally:

So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?

Should we Leave I will still be British and European. Just as the Swiss and Norwegians are European. But I won't be under the EU.

Indeed.

 treslibras wrote:


I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?

Because Brits cannot make a rational decision?

It's high handed attitudes like the one that you demonstrate that take a rational discussion and poison it.

Also I find it risible that Military conflict come into this discussion. The UK has not started a continental conflict for centuries. We have of course had to step in and solve a few. I can see nothing but good that have come from those interventions for Europe see no reason why that would change in the future. The EU does not provide the UK with some magic formulae that keeps us from harm; we already have that covered quite nicely thank you.

My suggestion: Some time ago (in the 1970s), British people (or at least their leaders) thought it was a brilliant idea to become more European. 1. Ask yourself why. 2. See where your country has gone from that point on. 3. Make a decision if you want to continue that way, or at least keep what you got out of it, or not.

1. The British people voted to join the Common Market in 1970's and not the European Union.
2. Because Britain were still paying for the effects of WW2 so a free trade area (really a customs area but anyway...) was highly desirable to all as an opportunity to lift Britain out of the doldrums.
3. We would continue that way but the Common Market has mutated from what we voted for and into the EU, which will in turn mutate into a European State. We didn't vote for this and don't want it. It is not a rejection of Europe but of a non-democratic and distant form of governance that we have never voted for.

So basically no thank you.