European Union Referendum

[Alty]

Is that a fact?

No, it's nonsense.

Even if we were to make the worst possible assumptions about the German people and their Government - that they were desperate to get rid of British people and would gladly relegate them to the status of Russian or Brazilian nationals irrespective of the unique circumstances they'd find themselves in post-Brexit - the fact is the British in Germany are somewhat different in character and circumstance to, for example, the Romanians in the UK. We're not talking here about people with very limited financial means who work as delivery men. We're looking much more at academics, engineers, people working in the financial sector etc etc. These are the kind of people that it's not particularly clever to chuck out if you want your country to be successful. The Germans might be annoyed with us post-Brexit, but I'm not convinced they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot as a result.

But perhaps more importantly, do you want to tell me how Germany (assuming they go mad and try to deport Brits en masse) are going to get rid of all these people once they submit rock solid Article 8 Human Rights claims? Are we seriously saying people who've lived there for years and whose whole social network is there are going to be turfed out? People married to Germans and whose kids have German passports? Do me a fucking favour.

 

[Max]

No, it's nonsense.

Even if we were to make the worst possible assumptions about the German people and their Government - that they were desperate to get rid of British people and would gladly relegate them to the status of Russian or Brazilian nationals irrespective of the unique circumstances they'd find themselves in post-Brexit - the fact is the British in Germany are somewhat different in character and circumstance to, for example, the Romanians in the UK. We're not talking here about people with very limited financial means who work as delivery men. We're looking much more at academics, engineers, people working in the financial sector etc etc. These are the kind of people that it's not particularly clever to chuck out if you want your country to be successful. The Germans might be annoyed with us post-Brexit, but I'm not convinced they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot as a result.

But perhaps more importantly, do you want to tell me how Germany (assuming they go mad and try to deport Brits en masse) are going to get rid of all these people once they submit rock solid Article 8 Human Rights claims? Are we seriously saying people who've lived there for years and whose whole social network is there are going to be turfed out? People married to Germans and whose kids have German passports? Do me a fucking favour.

This is an interesting stance. I am aware I am making a generalisation, but surely you can't say the same for the British in Spain or France, who are mostly retired, a drain on public resources etc?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

if they are retired, they aren't taking resources away from spain, are they? they ain't claiming a spanish pension, they are buying spanish products and real estate, stimulating it in fact

 

[Max]

if they are retired, they aren't taking resources away from spain, are they? they ain't claiming a spanish pension, they are buying spanish products and real estate, stimulating it in fact

I was more thinking that they are probably not working, thus not paying taxes to Spain, and as they are old quite likely to need healthcare in Spain. Whereas a typical EU migrant to the UK tends to pay tax to Britain (their tax contributions far outweigh any benefits withdrawals) and they also tend to be fit young and healthy, thus not really be using the NHS much.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

from my encounters with doddery old folk who retire to spain, most medical issues they tend to fly home for due to a distrust of latin doctors

 

[Max]

from my encounters with doddery old folk who retire to spain, most medical issues they tend to fly home for due to a distrust of latin doctors

Perhaps true, but I spose we're down to annecdotes here.

If we did leave, we have 3 million EU migrants here, and about 1.2m Brits abroad. We'd not want to have those 1.2m Brits shipped back here, and the vast majority of EU migrants in the UK have a job, so we'd not want to deport them. The effects on, for instance, the NHS would be disastrous. So I think if we vote to leave, very little in the short-medium term will change. Immigration is a red herring in this referendum.

 

[Alty]

Perhaps true, but I spose we're down to annecdotes here.

If we did leave, we have 3 million EU migrants here, and about 1.2m Brits abroad. We'd not want to have those 1.2m Brits shipped back here, and the vast majority of EU migrants in the UK have a job, so we'd not want to deport them. The effects on, for instance, the NHS would be disastrous. So I think if we vote to leave, very little in the short-medium term will change. Immigration is a red herring in this referendum.

You can't say it's a red herring. Whether you're in favour of more, less or the same amount of immigration, this referendum provides the UK with the opportunity to take back control of the issue in the years ahead.

Although some EU migrants have now got a permanent right of residence, I suspect the others would be given a period of time to regularise their stay, i.e. They can stay but need to remain in work and pay for a work permit. Some would stay, others wouldn't. The numbers could reduce gradually as the UK limited new arrivals.

 

[mente captus]

No, it's nonsense.

Even if we were to make the worst possible assumptions about the German people and their Government - that they were desperate to get rid of British people and would gladly relegate them to the status of Russian or Brazilian nationals irrespective of the unique circumstances they'd find themselves in post-Brexit - the fact is the British in Germany are somewhat different in character and circumstance to, for example, the Romanians in the UK. We're not talking here about people with very limited financial means who work as delivery men. We're looking much more at academics, engineers, people working in the financial sector etc etc. These are the kind of people that it's not particularly clever to chuck out if you want your country to be successful. The Germans might be annoyed with us post-Brexit, but I'm not convinced they'd want to shoot themselves in the foot as a result.

But perhaps more importantly, do you want to tell me how Germany (assuming they go mad and try to deport Brits en masse) are going to get rid of all these people once they submit rock solid Article 8 Human Rights claims? Are we seriously saying people who've lived there for years and whose whole social network is there are going to be turfed out? People married to Germans and whose kids have German passports? Do me a fucking favour.

they wont divide families of course but a lot, if they want to stay, have to pick up the german citizenship.

Its very likely that the germans will make a deal then with the uk as we did with some other countries. People from Australia, Japan, USA and New Zealand for example be treated as EU citizens in Germany.

 

[Tilbury]

This is an interesting stance. I am aware I am making a generalisation, but surely you can't say the same for the British in Spain or France, who are mostly retired, a drain on public resources etc?

Social issues too. Lack of intergration with locals and poor knowledge of spanish, especially when compared to other immigrants there.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

they wont divide families of course but a lot, if they want to stay, have to pick up the german citizenship.

Its very likely that the germans will make a deal then with the uk as we did with some other countries. People from Australia, Japan, USA and New Zealand for example be treated as EU citizens in Germany.

There we go, some common sense.
According to the 2011 census, there are 273,000 German born people living in the UK* Of course a deal would be reached and nobody from one nation currently living in the other would be forced out.
*Distorted to an extent by kids born on UK military bases in 1980's Germany who then moved back after their parents' tour completed

 

[S2_Blade]

So can't want for this vote to be done and dusted so news channels talk about something else.

I will be voting to leave, I would like us to bring in our own point based system for migrants like Australia and limit the number each year to a more sustainable amount for our country to cope with.

Also the money we pay in to the EU would be a huge saving as well, yes we get odd kick backs but nowhere near enough, and be able to rule our country how we want without EU sticking their nose in every 5 minutes.

We were a brilliant country before the EU and we could thrive again easily out of it, Trade would be fine because we are main buyers of stuff from EU like cars from BMW, Audi and VW for example and it would be suicide for them to charge us more because we were not in EU as they would lose trade and we would just buy cars etc from elsewhere and they would end up having to shut down their operations and people would lose jobs at those companies.

We would also be able to compete with other nations for Trade elsewhere, we are limited to charge same price so we are not under cutting other EU countries but out we could under cut and bring more business to the UK, Norway & Switzerland are not in EU and just look at how much they are thriving right now.

Main reason MP's wanting to remain in is because they don't want to work for a living as they would have create regulations and at moment they can just blame stuff that goes wrong on EU.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

the successful australian model that's led to basically every international NGO accusing them of human rights abuse

 

[mnb089mnb]

the successful australian model that's led to basically every international NGO accusing them of human rights abuse

And let's stop paying into the EU and be like Norway (who pay the EU). Bit of a fuddly mess of a post that one.

 

[nousername]

the successful australian model that's led to basically every international NGO accusing them of human rights abuse

Oh come on... I think you're quite deliberately confusing asylum seekers with economic migrants...

 

[Max]

So can't want for this vote to be done and dusted so news channels talk about something else.

I will be voting to leave, I would like us to bring in our own point based system for migrants like Australia and limit the number each year to a more sustainable amount for our country to cope with.

Also the money we pay in to the EU would be a huge saving as well, yes we get odd kick backs but nowhere near enough, and be able to rule our country how we want without EU sticking their nose in every 5 minutes.

We were a brilliant country before the EU and we could thrive again easily out of it, Trade would be fine because we are main buyers of stuff from EU like cars from BMW, Audi and VW for example and it would be suicide for them to charge us more because we were not in EU as they would lose trade and we would just buy cars etc from elsewhere and they would end up having to shut down their operations and people would lose jobs at those companies.

We would also be able to compete with other nations for Trade elsewhere, we are limited to charge same price so we are not under cutting other EU countries but out we could under cut and bring more business to the UK, Norway & Switzerland are not in EU and just look at how much they are thriving right now.

Main reason MP's wanting to remain in is because they don't want to work for a living as they would have create regulations and at moment they can just blame stuff that goes wrong on EU.

Norway and Switzerland are not great comparisons, as they accept free movement of people and still have to abide by EU regulations in respect to trade etc. Considering the main reasons people cite for wanting to leave are immigration and EU bureaucrat-ism, it seems odd to cite them as examples. So we'd actually be trying to forge our own path, negotiating a deal whereby we didn't have to accept those conditions. Surely we can't really say if that would be 'easy' or difficult, because nobody has really done it before.

On immigration, at the moment we have a points-based immigration system for non-EU migrants, and obviously we don't for EU migrants. At the moment though, migrants from outside the EU outnumber the ones from the EU, so obviously the points-based system isn't a panacea.

I don't think, typically, the MPs who complain vocally about the EU are the same ones who want to remain. To be honest I don't really buy that argument.

 

[Alty]

Norway and Switzerland are not great comparisons, as they accept free movement of people and still have to abide by EU regulations in respect to trade etc. Considering the main reasons people cite for wanting to leave are immigration and EU bureaucrat-ism, it seems odd to cite them as examples. So we'd actually be trying to forge our own path, negotiating a deal whereby we didn't have to accept those conditions. Surely we can't really say if that would be 'easy' or difficult, because nobody has really done it before.

On immigration, at the moment we have a points-based immigration system for non-EU migrants, and obviously we don't for EU migrants. At the moment though, migrants from outside the EU outnumber the ones from the EU, so obviously the points-based system isn't a panacea.

I don't think, typically, the MPs who complain vocally about the EU are the same ones who want to remain. To be honest I don't really buy that argument.

You're right about accepting free movement, but not legislation. Norway only implements about 10% of the EU legislation we do, because they only have to do so when it relates to trade between them and the EU. We force businesses in Mansfield with no prospect of exporting to the EU to abide by EU regulations, irrespective of the costs involved.

On immigration the figures are just completely weird for a number of boring reasons.

I think a net figure of around 100,000-150,000 per year - with more from the Anglosphere than elsewhere - is probably round about what we actually need/would benefit from.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Where does that 10% stat come from?

How do you know we only need 100K to 150K per year?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

On immigration, at the moment we have a points-based immigration system for non-EU migrants, and obviously we don't for EU migrants. At the moment though, migrants from outside the EU outnumber the ones from the EU, so obviously the points-based system isn't a panacea.

TBF, I don't think anyone with a 3-figure IQ has said it is. In theory, however, adopting a points-based system and applying it universally (i.e. to every applicant regardless of his/her nationality) has three obvious advantages: (1) it gives the state the capacity to exercise greater quality control; (2) it gives the state the capacity to reduce the numbers, if deemed necessay; and (3) it is inherently fairer and more equitable.

You're right that the existing points-based system hasn't done much to reduce non-EU immigration, but that isn't its overarching purpose. If the sole intention is to reduce numbers, some kind of work visa/permit system under which residency rights are contingent on contracted employment (with strict limits imposed regarding dependents) would be more effective. Or, if sledgehammer-to-break-a-nut type solutions are your bag, you just introduce quotas.

If a points-based system is badly thought out, poorly administered, injudiciously managed, inadequately resourced, etc. then the aforementioned advantages (especially 1 and 2) will remain merely theoretical. In such an instance, however, what you'd have is a poor example of the idea in practice, not knock-down evidence that the basic concept is wrong.

The main problem with the current intra-EU situation isn't really about the numbers (any discussion about opitmum numbers is almost certainly a waste of time); the fundamental problem concerns how enfeebled and impotent national governments have become on a key matter of national interest.

Will address the Norway/Switzerland stuff tomorrow, or some other time when I'm not drunk on Limoncello.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i feel your arguments about leaving the european union would be far more effective if u weren't drinking an italian liqueur

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Aye, I can see it now. I shall divorce my French wife. I shall ditch the Limoncello for Newcastle Brown Ale. No paella for dinner tonight, love; bread and dripping with a side of mushy peas for me. I shall burn every European cultural product in my possession and instead satisfy my literary thirst by re-reading over and over the oeuvre of Tony Parsons. I shall thoroughly de-Europeanise my life, thus giving greater credence to the thoroughly illogical view that anti-EU opinion of any kind is just a spurious pretext for parochial hatred of all things foreign. Then, and only then, will you dipshits listen to me!

You keep grabbing that low-hanging fruit, mate.

 

[Max]

TBF, I don't think anyone with a 3-figure IQ has said it is. In theory, however, adopting a points-based system and applying it universally (i.e. to every applicant regardless of his/her nationality) has three obvious advantages: (1) it gives the state the capacity to exercise greater quality control; (2) it gives the state the capacity to reduce the numbers, if deemed necessay; and (3) it is inherently fairer and more equitable.

You're right that the existing points-based system hasn't done much to reduce non-EU immigration, but that isn't its overarching purpose. If the sole intention is to reduce numbers, some kind of work visa/permit system under which residency rights are contingent on contracted employment (with strict limits imposed regarding dependents) would be more effective. Or, if sledgehammer-to-break-a-nut type solutions are your bag, you just introduce quotas.

If a points-based system is badly thought out, poorly administered, injudiciously managed, inadequately resourced, etc. then the aforementioned advantages (especially 1 and 2) will remain merely theoretical. In such an instance, however, what you'd have is a poor example of the idea in practice, not knock-down evidence that the basic concept is wrong.

The main problem with the current intra-EU situation isn't really about the numbers (any discussion about opitmum numbers is almost certainly a waste of time); the fundamental problem concerns how enfeebled and impotent national governments have become on a key matter of national interest.

Will address the Norway/Switzerland stuff tomorrow, or some other time when I'm not drunk on Limoncello.

This all sounds sensible to me. My impression was that in the mid-2000s, a lot of EU migrants were doing unskilled work eg fruit-picking, and then also a lot of people came in to do work in manual labour and tradesman-type work (plumbing, electrics, building etc). I am very sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't allow wages to be driven down by too many people chasing the same low-paid jobs, but originally we had a big influx of EU migrants from Eastern Europe because we did have a big need for those skills. A very common theme a few years back is that British people wouldn't do certain jobs as willingly as migrants, although I do think the story has shifted post-recession. What I am saying though, is that the British labour market is more flexible than many parts of Europe and has more temporary work, and that I think there is space for both highly-skilled, points-based migrants, and more temporary-based low-skilled workers coming into Britain. If we had only a points-based system, then the system would be quite unbalanced, in my view.

Actually, just to delve into that a bit more, people often blame EU migrants for driving down working-class wages. However, in parts of the workforce, this is not really the main issue. Last autumn a lot of areas of Kent didn't bother to harvest their apples because major supermarkets had decided to import cheaper varieties from China at a lower cost. The supermarkets behaviour re: dairy farming also ensures that no matter how low wages are set, agricultural workers are still screwed. See also the situation with steel and Chinese flooding of the market. I'm not trying to blame all our working-class employment issues on China, but would like to state that often there are more factors at play than EU migration. A much more troubling problem is that people can't make a decent living on the minimum wage, which is an issue that our government should be addressing, but I feel they're happy to see Poles and Lithuanians work for minimum wage and have those workers used as a scapegoat.

I entirely agree that this is an area that we forfeit a lot of sovereignty, but I would point out that we can reject people on the grounds of national security etc (and we frequently do) and that as I mentioned earlier, an EU citizen's right to come and work in Britain is tied up with our right to go and work and live anywhere in the EU, which more than a million people currently do. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Norway/Switzerland when your hangover abates.

I should have said they abide by regulations when trading with the EU. On the point of EU law, of the approximately 2,500 the EU passed 1996-present day, we voted for 95%, abstained on 3% and voted against 2%. So we're left with around 150 laws we didn't actively vote for, some of which we rejected. One might argue that this is still an abuse of our national sovereignty and that one law is too many. But I reckon it's the price we pay for being part of a 28 country partnership!

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Aye, I can see it now. I shall divorce my French wife. I shall ditch the Limoncello for Newcastle Brown Ale. No paella for dinner tonight, love; bread and dripping with a side of mushy peas for me. I shall burn every European cultural product in my possession and instead satisfy my literary thirst by re-reading over and over the oeuvre of Tony Parsons. I shall thoroughly de-Europeanise my life, thus giving greater credence to the thoroughly illogical view that anti-EU opinion of any kind is just a spurious pretext for parochial hatred of all things foreign. Then, and only then, will you dipshits listen to me!

You keep grabbing that low-hanging fruit, mate.

a newcastle brown hangover would stop u waking up grumpy at least

 

[Captain Scumbag]

What I am saying is that the British labour market is more flexible than many parts of Europe and has more temporary work, and that I think there is space for both highly-skilled, points-based migrants, and more temporary-based low-skilled workers coming into Britain. If we had only a points-based system, then the system would be quite unbalanced, in my view.

In that case, the political challenge would be to devise a better system, one that allows for both flexibility and a healthy degree of (rational) discrimination and control. The problem is that any discussion about that is essentially a waste of time since it presupposes a degree of political autonomy we no longer have, at least vis-à-vis the intra-EU situation.

When folk in the Brexit camp talk about wishing to make EU migration subject to a points-based system, I suspect what appeals is not the particulars of that system (which they may be largely clueless about) but that sort of system's apparent capacity for greater control.

A much more troubling problem is that people can't make a decent living on the minimum wage, which is an issue that our government should be addressing, but I feel they're happy to see Poles and Lithuanians work for minimum wage and have those workers used as a scapegoat.

I broadly agree, though that is just one part of a general divide and rule strategy. Consider, for example, how indigenous workers are then vilified as too lazy and/or precious to work minimum wage jobs.

Your general point here is well taken. I just don't see how persisting with the status quo (with the possibility of other relatively poor countries eventually joining the EU) is going to help.

An EU citizen's right to come and work in Britain is tied up with our right to go and work and live anywhere in the EU, which more than a million people currently do.

Yes, it cuts both ways and it's regrettable there isn't more honest discussion about that. FWIW, I suspect the average British person would quite happily sacrifice the existing freedom to live and work on the continent (something most of them are linguistically ill-equipped to do anyway) in order to secure a greater degree of control over who can come in.

I should have said they abide by regulations when trading with the EU. On the point of EU law, of the approximately 2,500 the EU passed 1996-present day, we voted for 95%, abstained on 3% and voted against 2%. So we're left with around 150 laws we didn't actively vote for, some of which we rejected. One might argue that this is still an abuse of our national sovereignty and that one law is too many. But I reckon it's the price we pay for being part of a 28 country partnership!

Less ability to remove people who make bad laws (regardless of the actual number*) is certainly one price we pay. I'm not sure I'd describe it as an "abuse" of sovereignty since that implies misuse of power when it would be more accurate to describe it in terms of loss or abnegation. But putting semantics to one side for a moment, surely the pertinent question is whether the price is worth paying.

There is plenty of scope for honest disagreement here since it largely boils down to one's political/philosophical priorities; and, of course, some of us are rather more dewy-eyed about democracy than others. If you think the sacrifice is worth it, fair enough. But why? At present your argument seems predicated on a mere assumption that this 28 country partnership is axiomatically a good thing. But, again, why? Why is continued membership so obviously in our interests that we ought to abandon a political principle we once cared about so much that we fought a near-decade-long civil war over it?

* Though I consider the precise number of laws irrelevant, I'd nonetheless appreciate a source for your statistical claims.

P.S. Forgive me for not addressing the Norway/Switzerland stuff in this post. The Limoncello hangover has subsided (just), but I would like to do some re-reading before spouting off on that subject. Suffice it to say here that I think a lot of the arguments against such arrangements – e.g. Norway being dismissed as a "fax democracy" – are based on an ignorance about how various laws, regulations and standards (especially trade-related ones) originate and then cascade down to the national level. A (very dull) subject to return to.

 

[Max]

In that case, the political challenge would be to devise a better system, one that allows for both flexibility and a healthy degree of (rational) discrimination and control. The problem is that any discussion about that is essentially a waste of time since it presupposes a degree of political autonomy we no longer have, at least vis-à-vis the intra-EU situation.

When folk in the Brexit camp talk about wishing to make EU migration subject to a points-based system, I suspect what appeals is not the particulars of that system (which they may be largely clueless about) but that sort of system's apparent capacity for greater control.

I broadly agree, though that is just one part of a general divide and rule strategy. Consider, for example, how indigenous workers are then vilified as too lazy and/or precious to work minimum wage jobs.

Your general point here is well taken. I just don't see how persisting with the status quo (with the possibility of other relatively poor countries eventually joining the EU) is going to help.

Yes, it cuts both ways and it's regrettable there isn't more honest discussion about that. FWIW, I suspect the average British person would quite happily sacrifice the existing freedom to live and work on the continent (something most of them are linguistically ill-equipped to do anyway) in order to secure a greater degree of control over who can come in.

Less ability to remove people who make bad laws (regardless of the actual number*) is certainly one price we pay. I'm not sure I'd describe it as an "abuse" of sovereignty since that implies misuse of power when it would be more accurate to describe it in terms of loss or abnegation. But putting semantics to one side for a moment, surely the pertinent question is whether the price is worth paying.

There is plenty of scope for honest disagreement here since it largely boils down to one's political/philosophical priorities; and, of course, some of us are rather more dewy-eyed about democracy than others. If you think the sacrifice is worth it, fair enough. But why? At present your argument seems predicated on a mere assumption that this 28 country partnership is axiomatically a good thing. But, again, why? Why is continued membership so obviously in our interests that we ought to abandon a political principle we once cared about so much that we fought a near-decade-long civil war over it?

* Though I consider the precise number of laws irrelevant, I'd nonetheless appreciate a source for your statistical claims.

P.S. Forgive me for not addressing the Norway/Switzerland stuff in this post. The Limoncello hangover has subsided (just), but I would like to do some re-reading before spouting off on that subject. Suffice it to say here that I think a lot of the arguments against such arrangements – e.g. Norway being dismissed as a "fax democracy" – are based on an ignorance about how various laws, regulations and standards (especially trade-related ones) originate and then cascade down to the national level. A (very dull) subject to return to.

A source for the 95% stat: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

My main reasons for wanting to stay are that I have been convinced that the country benefits economically from being part of the EU. If we were to leave, in order to discourage the likes of Italy, Portugal etc from holding their own want-away referendums, I do not think the EU would be inclined to give us particularly generous settlement terms or future trade deals. I don't think it's worth risking our relationship with the single market.

Added to this, I think we have a fairly good relationship with the EU. We didn't join the euro, we're not involved in Schengen etc.

We could of course renegotiate all of our relations with our European neighbours in the event of leaving, and in the long term I'm sure the country would be fine, but I do think it would be a very unstable short to medium term.

As mentioned in my previous post, I think the 'anti-democratic' argument is exaggerated. There are a lot of checks and balances between the EU Council, Commission and Parliament, and the EU's work on, for example, environmental law, has been much to the benefit of the UK. Most of what the EU does I would broadly agree with, and I have not found any of the Leave arguments particularly compelling.

I do think there is something in the fact that the most high profile people in the Leave campaign are Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and George Galloway, all of whom are politically noxious, in my view. Of course there are people like Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart who are quite articulate about the issue, but I'm not convinced our future would be better off out. While I don't think any one person's opinion should be held up as infallible, the Remain side have now gathered the support of four ex-heads of NATO, the WTO, the OECD, the governor of the bank of England, all his advisers, all those ex-American secretaries of state, the ex-head of MI5, the ex-head of MI6, the G20, the IMF, and this is off the top of my head. This is compared to: Liam Fox, Iain Duncan Smith and the aforementioned people.

There is no clear idea being presented of what Britain outside of the EU would look like, because everyone in the Out campaign wants to leave for different reasons.

 

[mowgli]

So you're happy that we have to do what The EU tells us to do? Our electorate vote for a government that is run for Uk citizens not to be controlled by a foreign corrupt organization that have their own agenda that couldn't give a toss about what is best for us but make laws that we have to adhere to including not being able to deport suspected terrorists, Germany runs The EU and they need our money but will they take those who we think are are a threat to our citizens and take them in after we deport them?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I think fears about the single market are legitimate, and no doubt that topic (along with some general stuff about international trade) will feature prominently in my much-promised waffle about Norway and Switzerland. In the meantime, I'll deal with the other stuff. Apologies for the piecemeal way I'm tacking this!

A source for the 95% stat: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Cheers. I encourage folk here to read it in full.

As mentioned in my previous post, I think the 'anti-democratic' argument is exaggerated. There are a lot of checks and balances between the EU Council, Commission and Parliament

Please elaborate.

The EU's work on, for example, environmental law, has been much to the benefit of the UK. Most of what the EU does I would broadly agree with, and I have not found any of the Leave arguments particularly compelling.

That view is alarmingly short-sighted. What if 10-20 years down the line you think differently? What then is your recourse?

You've also failed to grasp the nettle of my argument as well as that of democratic arguments against the EU generally. The concern is not that EU decision-makers are a gaggle of incompetent twats who will inevitably make bad decisions; it's the lack of oversight and democratic accountability. You broadly agreeing with their decisions on X, Y or Z does nothing to alleviate that concern. There is a basic principle here, which is perhaps best expressed in the form of a question: do we want to make it easier or harder to remove people who make bad laws?

I do think there is something in the fact that the most high profile people in the Leave campaign are Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and George Galloway, all of whom are politically noxious.

No mention of David Icke? No jokes about Joan Collins? Poor show, Max. If you're going to damn by association, at least do it properly.

A basic precept of grown-up debate is that one should play the ball, not the man. One should at least try to separate arguments from one's misgivings about those making them. Since we're all prone to confirmation bias (and to a frightening extent), do we not have an intellectual obligation – to ourselves and each other – to put preconceptions about individuals to one side and consider arguments on their merits? I think Peter Mandelson is the fucking antichrist, but that doesn't make him wrong about the EU. A proper debate requires folk like you to adopt a similar attitude toward Farage, IDS, et al.

There will be never a shortage of establishment figures (past and present) to warn against disrupting the status quo, especially in the worlds of politics and economics. If your roll call of respected Remainers has some good arguments – or at least ones you personally found persuasive – I'll gladly consider and debate them. But an establishment roll call alone has no rhetorical or persuasive force, at least not for me. A largely discreditable motley crew comprised the Leave campaign in '75 (its two most senrior political figures were Tony Benn and Enoch Powell, FFS!), but viewed 40+ years later most of their arguments seem prescient.

There is no clear idea being presented of what Britain outside of the EU would look like, because everyone in the Out campaign wants to leave for different reasons.

'Tis a fair cop, mostly. I don't think there's much disagreement about the reasons for wanting out, but the Leave side has certainly failed to unify around a coherent post-Brexit vision, and that's one of the reasons why it will lose. However, to repeat myself from earlier in the thread, that argument ought to cut both ways.

Some in the Remain camp seem vaguely satisfied with the existing settlement. Others wish we'd stop being so obstructionist and commit fully to the integrationist agenda. And some, whether due to ignorance, naivety or duplicity, are persisting with the pea-brained idea that a less federal EU is achievable, but only if we stay in and moan a lot!

Remain doesn't have a coherent post-referendum vision either. It has unified around a central argument – namely that leaving is economically uncertain and, ipso facto, undesirable – but there is no coherent plan for the best way forward, no common view about what our membership will (or should) involve in 10-20 years' time. This, combined with the EU's federalist ambitions and well-documented history of opportunism and Fabian-type mission creep, ought to worry people a lot more than it apparently does.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

'It just goes to show Donald Trump is measured, neutral, doesn’t want to get stuck into the punch-up. He’s given a very diplomatic answer'

Farage on Trump

 

[mnb089mnb]

So you're happy that we have to do what The EU tells us to do? Our electorate vote for a government that is run for Uk citizens not to be controlled by a foreign corrupt organization that have their own agenda that couldn't give a toss about what is best for us but make laws that we have to adhere to including not being able to deport suspected terrorists, Germany runs The EU and they need our money but will they take those who we think are are a threat to our citizens and take them in after we deport them?

The EU and ECHR are two different things, no? We'd still be a part of ECHR even if we left the EU.

Germany pays more into the EU budget than the UK.

Edit: Although, I think replying to your posts is futile as you'll just post your bile in threads without standing behind the things you type.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Remain doesn't have a coherent post-referendum vision either. It has unified around a central argument – namely that leaving is economically uncertain and, ipso facto, undesirable – but there is no coherent plan for the best way forward, no common view about what our membership will (or should) involve in 10-20 years' time. This, combined with the EU's federalist ambitions and well-documented history of opportunism and Fabian-type mission creep, ought to worry people a lot more than it apparently does.

Isn't the potential danger to the economy enough? In general people couldn't care less about "democratic defecits", we've got an unelected head of state we celebrate, an unelected second chamber and we're no closer to proportional representation. This EU referendum has been called in order to sort out a schism in the Conservative party.

 

[Max]

So you're happy that we have to do what The EU tells us to do? Our electorate vote for a government that is run for Uk citizens not to be controlled by a foreign corrupt organization that have their own agenda that couldn't give a toss about what is best for us but make laws that we have to adhere to including not being able to deport suspected terrorists, Germany runs The EU and they need our money but will they take those who we think are are a threat to our citizens and take them in after we deport them?

As mentioned, 98% of the time we have voted with the EU or abstained, so we're not actually really 'told what to do'. We agree the vast majority of the time. Although when it comes to things like regulating the cleanliness of beaches, making sure things are labelled clearly and preventing unscrupulous manufacturers making unsafe products, I don't mind being 'told what to do'.

In reference to not being able to turn people away, we've turned more than 6,000 people away on security grounds since 2010.

I don't think you can really accuse Germany of not 'taking people' given their stance on the refugee crisis, and other than tabloid name-calling, what do you mean when you say Germany runs the EU?

I think fears about the single market are legitimate, and no doubt that topic (along with some general stuff about international trade) will feature prominently in my much-promised waffle about Norway and Switzerland. In the meantime, I'll deal with the other stuff. Apologies for the piecemeal way I'm tacking this!

Cheers. I encourage folk here to read it in full.

Please elaborate.

That view is alarmingly short-sighted. What if 10-20 years down the line you think differently? What then is your recourse?

You've also failed to grasp the nettle of my argument as well as that of democratic arguments against the EU generally. The concern is not that EU decision-makers are a gaggle of incompetent twats who will inevitably make bad decisions; it's the lack of oversight and democratic accountability. You broadly agreeing with their decisions on X, Y or Z does nothing to alleviate that concern. There is a basic principle here, which is perhaps best expressed in the form of a question: do we want to make it easier or harder to remove people who make bad laws?

No mention of David Icke? No jokes about Joan Collins? Poor show, Max. If you're going to damn by association, at least do it properly.

A basic precept of grown-up debate is that one should play the ball, not the man. One should at least try to separate arguments from one's misgivings about those making them. Since we're all prone to confirmation bias (and to a frightening extent), do we not have an intellectual obligation – to ourselves and each other – to put preconceptions about individuals to one side and consider arguments on their merits? I think Peter Mandelson is the fucking antichrist, but that doesn't make him wrong about the EU. A proper debate requires folk like you to adopt a similar attitude toward Farage, IDS, et al.

There will be never a shortage of establishment figures (past and present) to warn against disrupting the status quo, especially in the worlds of politics and economics. If your roll call of respected Remainers has some good arguments – or at least ones you personally found persuasive – I'll gladly consider and debate them. But an establishment roll call alone has no rhetorical or persuasive force, at least not for me. A largely discreditable motley crew comprised the Leave campaign in '75 (its two most senrior political figures were Tony Benn and Enoch Powell, FFS!), but viewed 40+ years later most of their arguments seem prescient.


'Tis a fair cop, mostly. I don't think there's much disagreement about the reasons for wanting out, but the Leave side has certainly failed to unify around a coherent post-Brexit vision, and that's one of the reasons why it will lose. However, to repeat myself from earlier in the thread, that argument ought to cut both ways.

Some in the Remain camp seem vaguely satisfied with the existing settlement. Others wish we'd stop being so obstructionist and commit fully to the integrationist agenda. And some, whether due to ignorance, naivety or duplicity, are persisting with the pea-brained idea that a less federal EU is achievable, but only if we stay in and moan a lot!

Remain doesn't have a coherent post-referendum vision either. It has unified around a central argument – namely that leaving is economically uncertain and, ipso facto, undesirable – but there is no coherent plan for the best way forward, no common view about what our membership will (or should) involve in 10-20 years' time. This, combined with the EU's federalist ambitions and well-documented history of opportunism and Fabian-type mission creep, ought to worry people a lot more than it apparently does.

I find the quote-in-a-quote-in-a-quote thing quite hard to write, so will do this point by point

1. I am awaiting your Norway/Switzerland post with anticipation ;-)

2. In terms of the checks and balances, my understanding is that the Commission proposes law, but this has to be passed by the Council (on which elected heads of state sit) and the Parliament (to which we send elected representatives). It takes, by British standards, a long time to pass a law, and is closer to the American system of checks and balances. There are some areas we still have a veto on, and the whole system, broadly, encourages centrist, consensus-driven politics. You could make the case that this encourages stability. I don't think I'll do that, as I don't think it's necessarily true, but the idea that the EU forces legislation down the throat of the British public is, I think fairly obviously, nonsense.

3. I agree it does sound short-sighted, but considering how much EU law gets passed (loads) and how much we agree with nationally (almost all of it, from the point of view of how the UK has voted) there would need to be a big change in the behaviour of the EU's law-making to make this a big issue for me. Had the EU forced us to behave the way Greece has been forced to behave, I think there'd be a great reason to have a referendum, and indeed to leave.

You are right that I did not argue with the key point about the principle of law-making. In principle we should make all our own laws, and be able to easily remove people we don't like. I would suggest the reality is that a poor principle does not actually undermine my quality of life, the majority of British democratic structures, or our ability nationally to do, broadly, whatever we like. I don't think you can separate the principle from the reality. And the proof, I would say, has been in the pudding. People forget we're the 5th largest global economy, are a roaring great success story and that people envy much about British society and life. You may argue that this would not change if we left the EU, but I can hardly see the EU as something that has harmed our ability to make our own laws etc or hampered us in a significant way.

4. About personalities, and my missed opportunity for a David Icke reference. When the facts are hugely contested, and we're talking about complex matters of the economy, politics and forecasting, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the company one is keeping. Also, the overwhelming consensus for remaining in the EU does reflect some people's actual experiences, e.g. heads of MI5 and MI6, heads of NATO etc. As it happens, I loath the prime minster and chancellor, but the latter hit the nail on the head today when he said the consensus forming around Remain was a 'consensus and not a conspiracy', as some Brexiteers would have me believe.

Some people's status and jobs do inform their opinion. Nigel Farage, by contrast, has been happy to sit in the EU Parliament, obstruct the system, demean our national reputation, take all the money, benefits and perks offered while doing next to know work, and has prided his entire political career on one single issue. This may be a bit of a red herring of a point, but Boris Johnson's decision to back Leave was reported as being entirely career-oriented, and everything I have known while being a London citizen does indeed confirm my view that he is usually not thinking of the issue at hand, but rather his own advancement.

If I'm being offered a choice of two things (I'm going to say washing machines), and one washing machine is endorsed by ten mad blokes down the pub, and the other one is endorsed by industry professionals, washing machine repairmen, washing machine sales people, the government etc., Imma go with the second washing machine.

5. We agree that the 'going to get the EU our way if we stick it out' argument is feeble and not going anywhere, but I don't see why we can't continue in our current arrangement of resisting further integration (as mentioned, we didn't join the Euro, or Schengen). We're an island nation, we do have some clout in the EU, and broadly we can get our own way.

Perhaps it doesn't worry me (the mission creep) because indeed we've resisted parts of it. Though frankly, and I am in the tiny minority, I wouldn't mind further integration with Europe. I'd like us to elect a second chamber of Parliament, abolish the monarchy and reform our electoral system. Britain persists in being hugely antiquated and daft on these three points, and I am in no way sentimental about the pound (not saying we should have joined the euro, I'm just not against it in principle in future, if it were to be right for the country).

My argument is principally the the EU has worked alright for us (as well as can be expected for a 28 country organisation) and that while we currently have our arrangement, the onus should be on Leave campaigners to set out a better future outside. I will return to my greatest concern, is that if we left, we have no guarantee of striking up good economic relations similar to the ones we have now. For all the strength in the point that people want our stuff and want us to buy for them, the EU will make our lives a bloody misery rather than showing Italy/Portugal/Greece that leaving the EU benefits a member state, and punish us however they can in the leaving process. Prices would surely rise, jobs could be put at risk, the economy in the short-medium term would suffer. Of course these things could be re calibrated with time, probably. I await your Norway / Switzerland riposte, because I don't see how we'd get entry into the single market without following their conditions etc...