Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

There's a decent documentary by Laura Kuenssberg on iPlayer at the moment where she challenges assertions made by both sides:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07dpt29/britain-and-europe-for-richer-or-poorer

I say "decent" because in my opinion, she doesn't go far enough, particularly in her questioning of Leave campaigners.

That's Kuenssberg as a whole though.

The Economist has a special report on Britain's relationship with the EU available as a PDF if anyone is interested.

djpbarry

I see Jez has finally thrown Labour's weight behind the Remain campaign - he took his bloody time about it.

None the less, it'll be interesting to see the effect (if any) on the polls.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I see Jez has finally thrown Labour's weight behind the Remain campaign - he took his bloody time about it.

None the less, it'll be interesting to see the effect (if any) on the polls.

It's converted me to a Leave.

joking

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

I see Jez has finally thrown Labour's weight behind the Remain campaign - he took his bloody time about it.

None the less, it'll be interesting to see the effect (if any) on the polls.

I'm not convinced. I'll be voting Remain but Corbyn's spent too much time railing against the EU to champion it now.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not convinced. I'll be voting Remain but Corbyn's spent too much time railing against the EU to champion it now.

But 'keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding worse' - it might be the least worst option. You can always try and change it from within - you cannot change it from without.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

But 'keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding worse' - it might be the least worst option. You can always try and change it from within - you cannot change it from without.

Absolutely. I've been committed to voting "Remain" since the announcement. Corbyn seems to be very much alone in this regard within his party. If memory serves, they only have one pro-Brexit MP.

BlitzKrieg

Sam Russell wrote: »

But 'keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding worse' - it might be the least worst option. You can always try and change it from within - you cannot change it from without.

There is some truth to that if you consider that Labour is part of the European Socialist party who along with five other european party pushed that the european commission president had to be a nominee from the party that won the most seats in the european elections in 2014: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-presidential-debates-2014/

they even had presidental debates and everything: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/presidential-candidates/#.V1BkppMrIUE


But little to none of this ever came to the UK because the two largest groups in european elections here in the UK refused to take part

the Conservatives dont believe the european commission president should be elected and refused to take part: http://www.aecr.eu/aecr-to-not-field-candidate-for-commission-presidency/

and the other was UKIP who just liked taking peoples money and claiming there was no democracy in europe.


A Labour government that actually pushed in the next european election what was really on the line could indeed change a lot of the perception of the EU and how people see it works


Also on top of that remember that the standard Commissioner can be selected by each member state by any means they wish.


Frankly its incredibly easy to change the EU there's just no political will to do it because they like it as it is.

Calina

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean - the arguments from the two sides are literally polar opposites of each other?
That assumes the polls are reliable, which they certainly were not for the general election.
Again, that depends on what you're prepared to take as a reliable indicator. For example, online polls show a very tight race, but telephone polls consistently predict a pretty comfortable win for Remain. Different people will give different reasons for this discrepancy, but in my opinion, it’s difficult to obtain a completely random sample in an online poll, whereas this is easily achieved with telephone polling.

Another indicator is the odds offered by bookies, pretty much all of whom have been consistently offering short odds on a Remain win:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-odds-live-updates-on-percentage-chance-of-uk-leaving-the-eu

At this point in time, a narrow win for Remain looks the most likely outcome.

Depends. The profile of phone users has changed as well and whereas calling a bunch of landlines might get you a reasonable sample, finding a reasonable sample between mobiles and landlines now could be challenging.

Sam Russell

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Frankly its incredibly easy to change the EU there's just no political will to do it because they like it as it is.

Who are the 'they' that like it like it is?

I would think the politicians and the lobbyists - and the corporates - but the plebs have not been asked in a way that they can get their opinions heard.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

Who are the 'they' that like it like it is?

I would think the politicians and the lobbyists - and the corporates - but the plebs have not been asked in a way that they can get their opinions heard.

Of course they have. Elections are held at both domestic and EU levels. Plenty of opportunity there for a large variety of opinions to be expressed.

BlitzKrieg

Sam Russell wrote: »

Who are the 'they' that like it like it is?

I would think the politicians and the lobbyists - and the corporates - but the plebs have not been asked in a way that they can get their opinions heard.

I stated *political will* so 'they' would be the politicians. Reoccuring theme is for the vast majority of issues with the EU, you tend to find it can be resolved by the national government but they rather not.

For example there is actually no EU law in place for how a Commissioner is selected from each member state, they can do it by any means they want. The only requirements is the president picks what role they have in the commission and the parliament gets to vote on the commission as a whole

But no government in europe has opted for any form of election (despite now commissioners always being appointed 3 months after the European elections) and most I dont think even vote in the national parliaments, as far as I can tell they are just picked by the current leader at the time. There's not even a requirement for them to be an elected official

That is the case with the UK. David Cameron just picked the British Commissioner. He just picked from the House of Lords. We could have it at least be required that the commissioner is an elected national official. But nope

Thats on the UK, not the EU. They accuse the commission of being a bunch of unelected bureaucrats and yet the power to make them something else is entirely in their hands.

Which will forever be the reoccurring theme of the EU, its an organisation that gives every power and opportunity to the national governments and for the most power they either show no will of their own to lead or in the case of for example Ireland and water charges bollocks it up pretty amazingly and then they turn around and throw the blame back at the EU

corruption in spending of EU funding? EU's fault despite 80% of all EU funding is spent by national governments

Poorly implemented EU laws? EU's fault despite every EU law passing through the Council of Ministers where the national government is meant to send its minister for that area to address such issues.


An EU overextending itself and grabbing too much power? Every EU expansion of powers and members is done by national governments country by country, not by the EU body


It just goes on and on and I shake my head...

djpbarry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not convinced. I'll be voting Remain but Corbyn's spent too much time railing against the EU to champion it now.

True, it all rings a little hollow from Corbyn, but none-the-less, Labour needs to get itself involved and turn the "debate" into something more than a Tory internal dispute.

Maybe they should get Sadiq front and centre?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe they should get Sadiq front and centre?

Just read on the BBC website that it does in fact look like he's going to be the face of Labour's campaign:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36411116

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

True, it all rings a little hollow from Corbyn, but none-the-less, Labour needs to get itself involved and turn the "debate" into something more than a Tory internal dispute.

Maybe they should get Sadiq front and centre?

Good idea. I just hope it isn't "too little, too late". Some of the misconceptions surrounding the referendum are truly astounding. I was at a talk where one woman asked, "Is there any way out of this German dictatorship?"

View

View wrote: »

Of course they have. Elections are held at both domestic and EU levels. Plenty of opportunity there for a large variety of opinions to be expressed.

I find this reply very unrealistic.

For all our rotten, Irish luck (weak & undistinguished leadership, a prattling, undistinguished media; an introverted population, with minds as grubby and narrow as potato drills...) we do have one saving grace: the constitutional referendum.

The various referendums—like ugly children, whom we wish we had nothing to do with— have served as staging posts along our marriage with the European Union. We have become familiar with Europe. We have consented to it. We have taken its money. Having deliberated at length over the years, we have reflected long and hard before deciding to live with its foul opinions.

Now, we just lie back and make love to the Brute, grudgingly.

The Brits have never had such opportunities as we have had to deliberate, to genuinely consider the alternatives, and to consent to this grotesque marriage.

In an ideal world, elections would be fought on these topics, but in reality, media giddishness and personality politics tend to distract from substantive issues during the course of elections. EU politics is always presented as an afterthought.

I won't be one bit surprised if, after chaining the Brits to the bed over so many decades, they finally decide to break their piggy-bank, take their running-away-money, and leave.

Economically, they'll be worse off. No doubt. But then a nation was never an economy. The Remain side often fail to grasp this.

Lemming

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Economically, they'll be worse off. No doubt. But then a nation was never an economy. The Remain side often fail to grasp this.

No, I think the remain side have the pragmatic reality down to a T. You'll find that it's the 'leave' campaign that haven't grasped the fact that a nation requires a functioning economy. Not once have they expressed a realistic assessment of what a post-exit Britain might look like for joe soap.

Sam Russell

Lemming wrote: »

No, I think the remain side have the pragmatic reality down to a T. You'll find that it's the 'leave' campaign that haven't grasped the fact that a nation requires a functioning economy. Not once have they expressed a realistic assessment of what a post-exit Britain might look like for joe soap.

How can they?

There is no agreement post Brexit - it is likely that the terms for EFTA or EEA will be too much like EU membership (with its costs) and will be rejected (too much free-movement of those nasty foreigners) and there are no trade agreements lined up (back of the queue). What will happen to the Brits in Spain when faced with loss of their E111 card?

So what can they look forward to that is not bleak? No-one selling fish shouts 'Rotten fish'?

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

How can they?

There is no agreement post Brexit - it is likely that the terms for EFTA or EEA will be too much like EU membership (with its costs) and will be rejected (too much free-movement of those nasty foreigners) and there are no trade agreements lined up (back of the queue). What will happen to the Brits in Spain when faced with loss of their E111 card?

So what can they look forward to that is not bleak? No-one selling fish shouts 'Rotten fish'?

That's sort of the point I was making. Everything they've said lacks substance and boils down to a wonderful analogy I saw on facebook a few days ago. It goes something like this:

We have all been on a night out with that mate who when you're in a club says "it's **** here, lets go somewhere else". Then when you leave you realise he has no idea where to go and the place you just left wont let you back in. Without a decent follow-up plan a leave vote could see the UK stood in a Kebab shop arguing about whose fault it is.

So simple that even the most uninformed person can understand that there will be implications.

Sam Russell

Lemming wrote: »

So simple that even the most uninformed person can understand that there will be implications.

The trouble is the the most uninformed people are informed by rubbish facts and believe them because those people are simple and ill-informed.

The problem with democracy is everyone has a vote - even the stupid.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

No, I think the remain side have the pragmatic reality down to a T. You'll find that it's the 'leave' campaign that haven't grasped the fact that a nation requires a functioning economy.

You've just gone and proved my point exactly.

I said that many voters are choosing to leave for non-economic reasons, and you answer by advancing an economic argument.

Here's the problem. The Remain side are treating 'economy' and 'society' as synonymous. In other words, they're failing to reply to a huge aspect to the Leave narrative.

-"I want society to live in closer accordance with British values"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

-"I want to see sovereignty taken from Brussels & returned to Parliament"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

-"I'm unhappy with the free movement of people"
-"ZOMG we're all going bankrupt!"

The economic arguments in favour of remaining in the EU are clear, and can be explained in three sentences.

But people are also voting for non-economic reasons, and the Remain side are failing to counter this. Sometimes, there is just no countering it.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But people are also voting for non-economic reasons, and the Remain side are failing to counter this. Sometimes, there is just no countering it.

There is no way of countering basic racism and xenophobia.

ancapailldorcha

The non-economic reasons you allude to are the same tired old chestnuts of immigraton and sovereignty.

Anyone who reads the news regularly should see that Westminster has no problem at all making laws and passing legislation from the EU. Personally, I find the term "British values" to be utterly devoid of any meaning whatsoever. It's just empty buzzwords thrown around by the likes of Daniel Hannan with no impact whatsoever for most people. Interestingly, people seem to see no sovereignty issues with the WTO, the UN or NATO.

Then, there is immigration. Immigrants have made positive contributions to the UK and yet people still have issues with them despite the fact that it is the government which won't build more houses, schools or hospitals with the extra taxes immigrants pay.

It ultimately boils down to the same old rants about "take back our country", "control our borders" or "let's govern ourselves".

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no way of countering basic racism and xenophobia.

Or arrogance.

The arguments that I mentioned are not racist. I disagree with them, but to call them racist is gross exaggeration.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Or arrogance.

The arguments that I mentioned are not racist. I disagree with them, but to call them racist is gross exaggeration.

I don't object to people being concerned about immigration or about the strain public services are under. However, it's become a convenient line for xenophobes and racists to mask those prejudices. One can only employ logic for so long before become exhausted with the same soundbytes from Farage and co over and over again.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Or arrogance.

The arguments that I mentioned are not racist. I disagree with them, but to call them racist is gross exaggeration.

I am not saying the arguments are racist, just that there is great support for leaving from those British people who are basically racist.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't object to people being concerned about immigration or about the strain public services are under. However, it's become a convenient line for xenophobes and racists to mask those prejudices.

So? That's your answer?

"I don't object to you making that argument sir, but some people who are racists are also making that argument"

*eyes glaze over, votes Leave*

There are perfectly decent Brits who feel strongly about these issues of sovereignty, social values and migration, and are voting accordingly.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

NYou'll find that it's the 'leave' campaign that haven't grasped the fact that a nation requires a functioning economy.

You think there can't be a functioning economy outside of the EU?

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think there can't be a functioning economy outside of the EU?

It'll be functioning but I think it's unlikely that it'll be performing as well as before.

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think there can't be a functioning economy outside of the EU?

I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a UK either which way the vote goes; what the leave campaign refuse to advance as their vision and/or argument for leaving is what shape that UK will take. It's all fine and well proclaiming yourself to be masters of your own destiny - whilst ignoring the whole WTO/ECHR, global trade thing which puts paid to such notions in the first place - but if joe soap suddely can't afford to buy anything and/or can't find a job because the labour market reduces notably in size, exactly what has been achieved? Will Joe Soap feel warm and fuzzy knowihng that he's master of his own destiny whilst simultaneously unable to feed the kids? I don't think so.

And not once, and I mean ONCE has the Leave campaign said what they expect the UK to be like if a leave vote is carried out. As pointed out already, that's because they can't. The Remain campaign have it right. Whatever which way misty eyed romantiscm gets waved about like a flacid penis, the econmy will dictate reality. As ye old expression goes: "Money talks, bullsh*t walks".

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a UK either which way the vote goes; what the leave campaign refuse to advance as their vision and/or argument for leaving is what shape that UK will take. It's all fine and well proclaiming yourself to be masters of your own destiny - whilst ignoring the whole WTO/ECHR, global trade thing which puts paid to such notions in the first place - but if joe soap suddely can't afford to buy anything and/or can't find a job because the labour market reduces notably in size, exactly what has been achieved? Will Joe Soap feel warm and fuzzy knowihng that he's master of his own destiny whilst simultaneously unable to feed the kids? I don't think so.

So you think that although there will still be a UK of some sort in the event of a brexit, the ordinary person is unlikely to be able to buy anything and will not be able to find a job and mass starvation?