European Union Referendum

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it'll be glorious it'll be like a portmanteau of the coca-cola christmas ad and the skittles ad

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Or perhaps team Brexit have failed to put forward a credible vision of what a Britain outside of the EU will look like.

If that's the standard then it was a losing battle from the get-go, because they're not in a position to know or control what that future would be in the first place.

 

[Pyeman]

COWARDICE.

Is it cowardice to want evidence that a change will be positive before voting for said change?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Again you've missed our point that the us of a can be considered a collection of states. The supreme court has power over the 50 states, and courts of the 50 states. If Obama came out and said he wanted to abolish the federal government and everything it entails then maybe you'd have a point.

I haven't missed your point; I just consider it a poor rejoinder to the argument Boris was making about the Americans and sovereignty (which is how you presented your point originally).

I see no reason to equivocate: the US is a collection of states. Collectively, however, those states form a nation. And although various powers (political, economic, judicial) are devolved to the individual states, there are various federal/national bodies that overarch that state structure. Through those, power is exercised on a national basis.

Supranationalism is about taking powers from those national bodies and institutions and giving them to some kind of transnational alternative. Boris did not use the word supranational (I doubt it would have made a jot of difference if he had, BTW), but that's almost certainly what he had in mind when he made his remarks.

The US being a federal republic tells us nothing about its attitude toward supranationalism. Its set-up demostrates enthusiasm for devolving powers internally, i.e. to the local states, which closes the geographic distance (and arguably the socio-cultural distance) between the people making the decisions and those who will be affected by them.

Supranationalism is the opposite. From the national level, powers are transferred externally to some kind of transnational body. The distance between those making the decisions and those affected by them is widened, which is why supranationalism raises various concerns about accountability, democratic deficits, etc.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Is it cowardice to want evidence that a change will be positive before voting for said change

I suspect that remark, expressed as it was in PP-esque CAPITALS FOR COMIC EFFECT was slightly tongue in cheek.

But to (kinda) address your question: It's not cowardly, but it's possibly unreasonable. In all seriousness, what evidence would satisfy you? How could I prove to you that Brexit would be better?

Both choices in the referendum are something of a leap into the unknown. Leaving appears the riskier leap because it's a proposed break from the status quo, but more folk need to realise that remaining isn't choosing to stick with something static, familiar and predictable. The EU is in a near-constant state of flux. Read the history. Look how much it's evolved since the referendum in 75. It wasn't even called the EU back then! Can those in the "remain" camp honestly say they know what the EU will look like in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time? Can they say with confidence that membership will still be in our interests?

The sobering truth is we don't know how the world will change and we rarely (if ever) make decisions with concrete evidence that option X will be better than option Y. In most cases, we hazard our best educated guess. We try to apply lessons learnt from past experience. We put some faith in our intuition. Or we entirely disregard concerns about likely outcomes and instead choose in accordance with basic principles.

 

[Arkan]

As Private Eye pointed out, somewhat ironic of Liam Fox saying that Obama shouldn't get involved in other countries politics when he wrote a series of articles backing Mitt Romney in the last election in the US.

That would be true if Barack Obama was writing a few articles backing one side in a general election but he's meddling in a once in a generation referendum. He is on a state visit where he will be making a speech 'urging' people to remain in the EU, have a meeting with the Queen and Prime Minister. His sphere of influence is a million times greater than Liam Fox writing an article or two. Barack Obama has also warned us that leaving the EU will leave Britain less able to tackle terrorism but that's strictly not true.

The Conservative election in 2015 was run by an Australian,I'm not saying foreigners can't get involved in British politics but if the shoe was on the other foot, Barack Obama wouldn't want another head of state meddling in his affairs.

 

[blade1889]

Could you imagine if Cameron went over to the USA to tell them to have stricter gun laws? In fact that may not be a bad idea...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Could you imagine if Cameron went over to the USA to tell them to have stricter gun laws? In fact that may not be a bad idea...

Because he'd get shot?

 

[blade1889]

Because he'd get shot?

Well it'd be fun watching the backlash if nothing else

 

[.V.]

I suspect that remark, expressed as it was in PP-esque CAPITALS FOR COMIC EFFECT was slightly tongue in cheek.

But to (kinda) address your question: It's not cowardly, but it's possibly unreasonable. In all seriousness, what evidence would satisfy you? How could I prove to you that Brexit would be better?

Both choices in the referendum are something of a leap into the unknown. Leaving appears the riskier leap because it's a proposed break from the status quo, but more folk need to realise that remaining isn't choosing to stick with something static, familiar and predictable. The EU is in a near-constant state of flux. Read the history. Look how much it's evolved since the referendum in 75. It wasn't even called the EU back then! Can those in the "remain" camp honestly say they know what the EU will look like in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time? Can they say with confidence that membership will still be in our interests?

The sobering truth is we don't know how the world will change and we rarely (if ever) make decisions with concrete evidence that option X will be better than option Y. In most cases, we hazard our best educated guess. We try to apply lessons learnt from past experience. We put some faith in our intuition. Or we entirely disregard concerns about likely outcomes and instead choose in accordance with basic principles.

You make a good point, but one choice is a bigger leap in to the unknown than the other. From what I can tell not even the different Brexit groups can agree on Britain could and should look like, post EU.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

We're like a nation of Arsenal fans that daren't get rid of Wenger.

 

[smat]

That would be true if Barack Obama was writing a few articles backing one side in a general election but he's meddling in a once in a generation referendum. He is on a state visit where he will be making a speech 'urging' people to remain in the EU, have a meeting with the Queen and Prime Minister. His sphere of influence is a million times greater than Liam Fox writing an article or two. Barack Obama has also warned us that leaving the EU will leave Britain less able to tackle terrorism but that's strictly not true.

The Conservative election in 2015 was run by an Australian,I'm not saying foreigners can't get involved in British politics but if the shoe was on the other foot, Barack Obama wouldn't want another head of state meddling in his affairs.

It's not meddling, is it? It's expressing an opinion.

Amazing how parochial some of you are. Obama is fully entitled to speak his mind on the EU, just as our Prime Minister is entitled to call Donald Trump 'stupid, divisive and wrong'. Whether people actually listen to those opinions is completely down to them.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Could you imagine if Cameron went over to the USA to tell them to have stricter gun laws? In fact that may not be a bad idea...

He'd get one half of the nation agreeing with him and supporting him, who incidentally would be more likely to know who he actually is,
He'd get the other half of the nation disagreeing vehemently with him, who more likely wouldn't have a fucking clue who he was anyway.

Obama coming over and expressing his opinion I'm fine with, but as with everything in this whole issue, opinions and facts are incredibly intertwined and confused with each other.

 

[Gashead]

To be fair, this sort of stuff has happened before (Scottish Ref for example) and will happen more and more as the referendum comes closer.

I guess it must be because the main figureheads of Remain have no real confidence in their own abilities to win over voters on the subject? So they wheel in others to back the cause, hoping they'll be listened to.

I don't know whether it will work again though. With someone like Johnson at the forefront I fear that Leave may gain some ground over the next six weeks or so.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i don't think they wheeled him in so much as he wanted to say something and it happened to support their cause. let us not forget brexit is seen by many as one of the biggest threats to the world economy. same way johnson can slam trump (also listed as a major threat lmao) same way obama can discuss britain's prospects outside the eu. i mean foreign policy is a major part of being a leader, ya know

 

[johnnytodd]

Are there any tv debates planned?

 

[mowgli]

To be fair, this sort of stuff has happened before (Scottish Ref for example) and will happen more and more as the referendum comes closer.

I guess it must be because the main figureheads of Remain have no real confidence in their own abilities to win over voters on the subject? So they wheel in others to back the cause, hoping they'll be listened to.

I don't know whether it will work again though. With someone like Johnson at the forefront I fear that Leave may gain some ground over the next six weeks or so.

The leave campaign know that with Cameron and Osbourne's dwindling popularity they have a massive job to persuade the electorate to vote for something those two are firmly in favour of which is a boon for us wanting to leave. As for Obama why would an intelligent voter care what he says as he only supports things that are favourable to America even if it's to the detriment of The UK.

 

[Gashead]

i don't think they wheeled him in so much as he wanted to say something and it happened to support their cause. let us not forget brexit is seen by many as one of the biggest threats to the world economy. same way johnson can slam trump (also listed as a major threat lmao) same way obama can discuss britain's prospects outside the eu. i mean foreign policy is a major part of being a leader, ya know

I get what you're saying, but its not just Obama. 'Brown to make huge intervention in EU debate' is another headline I've seen this week, which reminded me of 2014 again. And the Labour leadership election. It just seems to me like these things are becoming more and more about the people who say things, rather than the ideas.

'Obama says we should stay, Boris Johnson says we should leave' rather than why should we stay, why should we leave etc. Lack of info is a big negative of both campaigns when voters are asked.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

that's the media you have fault with then, these ideas u claim are lacking, they come from arguments which come from people. people who u are critcising for giving voice to the very arguments and ideas u claim are lacking

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

The leave campaign know that with Cameron and Osbourne's dwindling popularity they have a massive job to persuade the electorate to vote for something those two are firmly in favour of which is a boon for us wanting to leave. As for Obama why would an intelligent voter care what he says as he only supports things that are favourable to America even if it's to the detriment of The UK.

lol

 

[The East Terrace]

Agree with that about there being no substance to either campaign. The finances are just speculation on both sides. Vote stay and its as you were, vote out and what do we get exactly? We COULD change immigration rules, we COULD change laws, doesn't mean we will or any of the No camp have any idea of how they would change it and that pushes me towards the Stay camp as at least we know what we get with them, it isnt perfect but the Exit camp just shrug their shoulders and base their whole arguement on us being British by Golly and we don't want any Jonny Foreigner sticking his oar in. The local Brexit person was giving a speech in town and the only thing he sais I liked was getting your bins emptied every week like the good old days. Not enough to outweigh all the other questions they can't answer, so for me, Stay is lesser of two very lazy, ill informed evils.

 

[Pyeman]

I suspect that remark, expressed as it was in PP-esque CAPITALS FOR COMIC EFFECT was slightly tongue in cheek.

But to (kinda) address your question: It's not cowardly, but it's possibly unreasonable. In all seriousness, what evidence would satisfy you? How could I prove to you that Brexit would be better?

Both choices in the referendum are something of a leap into the unknown. Leaving appears the riskier leap because it's a proposed break from the status quo, but more folk need to realise that remaining isn't choosing to stick with something static, familiar and predictable. The EU is in a near-constant state of flux. Read the history. Look how much it's evolved since the referendum in 75. It wasn't even called the EU back then! Can those in the "remain" camp honestly say they know what the EU will look like in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time? Can they say with confidence that membership will still be in our interests?

The sobering truth is we don't know how the world will change and we rarely (if ever) make decisions with concrete evidence that option X will be better than option Y. In most cases, we hazard our best educated guess. We try to apply lessons learnt from past experience. We put some faith in our intuition. Or we entirely disregard concerns about likely outcomes and instead choose in accordance with basic principles.

I agree that it's difficult for the out campaign to provide a clear picture of what a post Brexit Britain would look like. But to be honest I don't see that as a reason to compromise. This is an important decision and I'm personally not willing to risk actively opting for a significant change without knowing what that change will actually mean. And I know you say staying in the EU is an unknown in itself, but it's nowhere near as uncertain as leaving would be.

The only way I can see people voting out is if, as you suggest, they vote based purely on principle and give little consideration to likely outcomes. To my mind that's a dangerous way to make decisions.

 

[mowgli]

I agree that it's difficult for the out campaign to provide a clear picture of what a post Brexit Britain would look like. But to be honest I don't see that as a reason to compromise. This is an important decision and I'm personally not willing to risk actively opting for a significant change without knowing what that change will actually mean. And I know you say staying in the EU is an unknown in itself, but it's nowhere near as uncertain as leaving would be.

The only way I can see people voting out is if, as you suggest, they vote based purely on principle and give little consideration to likely outcomes. To my mind that's a dangerous way to make decisions.

My opinion is that if we vote to stay The EU will take it we are happy with them making our laws and push us even further into more integration, they need us to stay in as financially they will be a lot poorer without our payments, also if we leave and things go well and we prosper i'm pretty sure other countries will want to do the same.

 

[Pyeman]

My opinion is that if we vote to stay The EU will take it we are happy with them making our laws and push us even further into more integration, they need us to stay in as financially they will be a lot poorer without our payments, also if we leave and things go well and we prosper i'm pretty sure other countries will want to do the same.

The only way we leave and financially prosper is by continuing the majority of our trade with Europe. In which case I don't see how they would be financially worse off without us.

 

[mowgli]

The only way we leave and financially prosper is by continuing the majority of our trade with Europe. In which case I don't see how they would be financially worse off without us.

Trade with America,India,New Zealand,Australia and The Far East will be happy to trade with us as well as The EU will still trade with us if we leave so i'm not worried at all by a leave vote.

 

[Pyeman]

Trade with America,India,New Zealand,Australia and The Far East will be happy to trade with us as well as The EU will still trade with us if we leave so i'm not worried at all by a leave vote.

I think all those trade options would be viable, I just don't necessarily see any outcome whereby we prosper and Europe dramatically suffer.

Plus there's far more to this debate than economics and it's important to remember that.

 

[silkyman]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...er/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Johnson given a mauling.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

You make a good point, but one choice is a bigger leap in to the unknown than the other. From what I can tell not even the different Brexit groups can agree on Britain could and should look like, post EU.

I'm not sure why that's a problem. The motley crew that comprises Team Leave isn't standing for election as a prospective government. And even we assume it is a problem, I'm not sure why you highlight it as a disadvantage for just one side. David Cameron, Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn presumably have very different ideas about how a post-referendum Britain should be. There isn't a great deal of ideological homogeneity in the Remain camp.

It's not meddling, is it? It's expressing an opinion. Amazing how parochial some of you are. Obama is fully entitled to speak his mind on the EU, just as our Prime Minister is entitled to call Donald Trump 'stupid, divisive and wrong'. Whether people actually listen to those opinions is completely down to them.

I agree (and indeed made the same point last week), but his "back of the line" remark wasn't merely opinion; it was a statement that clashed horribly with the insincere, perfunctory guff he spouted in the same speech about the "special relationship", and one which could certainly be construed as a threat. You cool with that?

I agree that it's difficult for the out campaign to provide a clear picture of what a post Brexit Britain would look like. But to be honest I don't see that as a reason to compromise. The only way I can see people voting out is if, as you suggest, they vote based purely on principle and give little consideration to likely outcomes. To my mind that's a dangerous way to make decisions.

It's a tough one, TBH. Like most conservatives, I have a kind of intuitive fear of hard-headed idealism, which is often dangerous. This is offset by a creeping suspicion that our near-pathological aversion to thinking anything through from first principles is one reason why the country is rapidly going down the crapper. I'm too tired and hungover to expand on this properly, so suffice it to say that short-term pragmatism and obsession with personally-favourable outcomes has its downsides too.

I think we basically agree. I'll vote "leave" out of principle, not particularly caring about the practical details, short-term outcomes, etc. This Spiked editorial covers most of the reasons why. Deep down, though, I know those arguments won't win the referendum. The average person doesn't care about democracy; or, if they do, it's easily trumped by other interests. When a change is proposed, the first thing people want to know is how it’ll affect them economically. If the change goes hand-in-hand with the mere possibility of economic uncertainty, people will (understandably) worry about their job. And they’ll vote for what they perceive to be the safer option.

Remain can say “vote with us, and everything will stay the same” . It’s not true for reasons already covered, but it’s a more plausible wheeze than “vote with us; stuff will change but it will probably work out fine”. That’s why Remain will win.

It’s easy to rag on Leave for this, to say they should have offered a clearer and more compelling explanation of what will happen in the event of us voting to leave. But that’s a lot easier said than done. In-depth, technical explanations about how it could be done (see some of Richard North’s Flexit stuff for an example) are pretty much impossible to distill down into a short, easily digestible message. And, as mentioned, no one really knows how history will unfold. People want assurances that can’t, in all honesty, be given.

 

[silkyman]

It's not meddling, is it? It's expressing an opinion.

Amazing how parochial some of you are. Obama is fully entitled to speak his mind on the EU, just as our Prime Minister is entitled to call Donald Trump 'stupid, divisive and wrong'. Whether people actually listen to those opinions is completely down to them.

I think you can pretty much drop the mic after that one.

And if it comes to whos opinion I'm going to listen to, I'll take Obama over Farage!

 

[Pyeman]

I'm not sure why that's a problem. The motley crew that comprises Team Leave isn't standing for election as a prospective government. And even we assume it is a problem, I'm not sure why you highlight it as a disadvantage for just one side. David Cameron, Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn presumably have very different ideas about how a post-referendum Britain should be. There isn't a great deal of ideological homogeneity in the Remain camp.

A slightly off topic question, but how easy is it to call a referendum?

My thinking is that if we leave and things go badly wrong it would be difficult for us to negotiate our way back into Europe. Whereas if we remain and things get worse than they are now, surely we could just decide to leave rather easily? (Assuming that was the national consensus of course).