Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But if there were specific goals you'd have people moaning about things being forced on countries in an undemocratic manner.

Why so? How would having specific policies in a party/group manifesto be considered undemocratic?

I don't remember hearing someone complaining about this, regardless of political views.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Why so? How would having specific policies in a party/group manifesto be considered undemocratic?

I don't remember hearing someone complaining about this, regardless of political views.

For example. if a pan-European alliance of economically liberal parties set an aim of introducing insurance based healthcare systems across Europe there'd be a worry that they might do this via the EU through their MEPs. By keeping the aims vague and adhering to general principals, this can be avoided.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If a pan-European alliance of economically liberal parties set an aim of introducing insurance based healthcare systems across Europe there'd be a worry that they might do this via the EU through their MEPs. By keeping the aims vague and adhering to general principals, this can be avoided.

This is fine though. If Europeans want that healthcare system they will vote for that group and give them a mandate to implement it, and if they don't want it they will vote for another group which is closer to what they want. Isn't that democratic? Implementing the system after the election without having mentioned it in the manifesto is what would cause frustrations about the system being undemocratic.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

This is fine though. If Europeans want that healthcare system they will vote for that group and give them a mandate to implement it, and if they don't want it they will vote for another group which is closer to what they want. Isn't that democratic?

Fair point. However, it might make certain Europeans nervous. There's already deep and widespread resentment at perceived meddling from Brussels.

Rightwing

The EU was good, now it is bad. Farage is a formidable opponent, Cameron was a fool to hold a referendum.

Simplistic analysis is often best.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair point. However, it might make certain Europeans nervous. There's already deep and widespread resentment at perceived meddling from Brussels.

True, but those people can be catered for by a group which says in its manifesto that healthcare systems must remain the prerogative of national governments and not be managed at the EU level.

Then everything is clear: if the European parliament is formed in majority by groups which clearly promote an EU wide system, it has a clear mandate to implement it and people who voted against can't say the idea hasn't been approved by a majority of Europeans. And if there is no majority for that idea in the parlement, it is obviously not what people want and shouldn't be entertained.

I think this is where the problem lies: if groups can't define clear and specific policies as part of their campaigns, they will never have clear popular mandates for the decisions they male and will always be called anti-democratic.

smjm

Fun to read this as it approaches its first anniversary!

'The left must put Britain's EU withdrawal on the agenda'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

Fun to read this as it approaches its first anniversary!

'The left must put Britain's EU withdrawal on the agenda'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic

And the same journalist this week :-)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/succumb-brexit-disaster-save-future-referendum-fallout

Maybe the reason many people don't listen to their political and intellectual elite anymore: they've seen it preach opposite things too many times depending on what suits the current agenda :-/

smjm

Seems the EU might be sending the UK messages via the Swiss!

'EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens

Leading Swiss newspapers are arguing that the Swiss and the UK make common cause to reach a solution, saying the two countries are in the same boat

Wonder if several smaller countries, such as Switzerland, Norway etc might start gathering around the UK to amplify their own voices? Interesting times ahead!

K-9

Bob24 wrote: »

Why so? How would having specific policies in a party/group manifesto be considered undemocratic?

I don't remember hearing someone complaining about this, regardless of political views.

It's vague because it's more a political grouping than a party.

K-9

Bob24 wrote: »

And the same journalist this week :-)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/succumb-brexit-disaster-save-future-referendum-fallout

Maybe the reason many people don't listen to their political and intellectual elite anymore: they've seen it preach opposite things too many times depending on what suits the current agenda :-/

Journalist in writing populist article shocker!

Seriously, both articles aren't that contradictory and indeed his warnings in the first came through, UKIP took centre stage in the election and Labour was one of the big losers. Having said that the first article is naive, Labour would have been in even more chaos than the Tories if they'd come out leave.

KindOfIrish

smjm wrote: »

Seems the EU might be sending the UK messages via the Swiss!

'EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens



Wonder if several smaller countries, such as Switzerland, Norway etc might start gathering around the UK to amplify their own voices? Interesting times ahead!

The interesting figures in the article regarding EU migrants. There are 1.2 million EU migrants in Switzerland and 1.5 in UK. Even if correct UK figure probably close to 2.5 m. with Switzerland population is 8 million and UK 65 millions, Brexiters claim that country overwhelmed by EU migrants looks stupid.

smjm

KindOfIrish wrote: »

The interesting figures in the article regarding EU migrants. There are 1.2 million EU migrants in Switzerland and 1.5 in UK. Even if correct UK figure probably close to 2.5 m. with Switzerland population is 8 million and UK 65 millions, Brexiters claim that country overwhelmed by EU migrants looks stupid.

I think the recent net inward migration figure of 330k made up the mind of many undecided voters. Exact overall numbers, or whether they were from within or without the EU mattered less. The Conservatives were elected (twice) on a pledge/lie to reduce annual net immigration to the tens of thousands. Before them, Labour lied about how many Poles were going to arrive when they were given access to the UK - I think they claimed it would be something like 13/14k per year. If the only major parties likely to form a government constantly lie to you about immigration, then using an opportune referendum as a blunt instrument to batter them with seems less surprising!

(No, I don't think immigration was the only factor in the referendum result. Yes, I do think it was an important factor.)

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

Journalist in writing populist article shocker!

Seriously, both articles aren't that contradictory and indeed his warnings in the first came through, UKIP took centre stage in the election and Labour was one of the big losers. Having said that the first article is naive, Labour would have been in even more chaos than the Tories if they'd come out leave.

That is the funny thing - you can feel in the second article he is refraining from saying Brexit is a bad thing because he probably hasn't changed his mind and still supports it. But on the other hand he doesn't want to say clearly he still thinks Brexit is a good thing because he knows it is not very fashionable in its political camp, and he wants to use the vote to criticise his political opponents and leverage the disappointment of younger politically involved people to push his own agenda. This is clear when he writes "Britain’s young didn’t want this to happen, and it is they who will suffer the most" as if his is on the side of "Britain's young" (but forgetting to mention he is not unhappy about Brexit).

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Meant that the president of the european commission has to come from the largest party elected in the european parliament

This is false.

The European Council shall "have regard" to the elections to the European Parliament, but are under no obligation to select a nominee from one particular party.

If two parties are very closely tied in the EP elections, for example, the European Council would be free to select a nominee from the second party.

There is no difference in how the european commission president got elected then how the US president gets elected in terms of process.

This is false.

When Americans cast their vote in a presidential election, they usual;y select "Electors for: (Donald J Trump)", i.e. the Presdidential candidates' names are usually on the polling card.

In any event, these electors then go on to elect a President.

This process is significantly diluted in Europe. We vote for candidates or parties (depending on whether a party list system or STV regime exists), but these candidates cannot, with certainty, assure us that their 'candidate' will ever make it to the ballot box.

In the US, at least you know what list of candidates the electors will vote upon, as soon as the parties have chosen their candidate after their respective conventions. That candidate will be in the running

In Europe, nobody knows what the European Council might decide.
MEPS elected to a the largest party may not get to vote in favour of their so-called candidate.

Once selected as the parliaments nomination, the Commission candidate is then voted on a second time by the European Council (which Junker passed with only 2 voting against him, The UK and Hungary [oops])

Making him the official Commission President candidate

This is false.

You've gotten it back-to-front. The nominee to the Presidency of the European Commission is proposed not by Parliament, but by the European Council, and is then presented for election by the Parliament.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Merkel and Hollande are national politicians who have no electoral position (wrt to an Irish electorate) within the EU but are hugely influential at EU level. That is the political scene in Europe and in the world. No-one in Europe have any influence on Putin's election but are affected by his actions.

This is false.

The so-called 'conclusions' adopted by the European Council outline specific actions to be undertaken. This is not a mere 'influential' role comparable to that exercised by Messrs. Obama & Putin.
The European Council also votes on challenges to legislation arising from the Council, say for example where Germany is outvoted in the Council, the decision can be referred to the European Council for determination.

Patser

Good BBC piece from behind the scenes of Boris and Gove, from just before the referendum, to Gove's stab in the back. Really does show that Boris had no plan to win, no plan on winning, and no comprehension on what being unpopular was like.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36693200

The thing is, all these articles that show the Leave camp were just throwing shapes with no plans are interesting and all, but the fact remains that in the this huge vote more than 1 million more voted to leave. It's decided. Like a lot if others I think it's a mental decision but it is decided.

What's needed now is leaks and articles on where everything is headed, something to sort of even partially the uncertainty. Asking for another referendum etc is just wasted time. Just hold the leaders (that haven't bailed out, to account) and start getting proposals.

BlitzKrieg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is false.

The European Council shall "have regard" to the elections to the European Parliament, but are under no obligation to select a nominee from one particular party.

If two parties are very closely tied in the EP elections, for example, the European Council would be free to select a nominee from the second party.

I touched on this when I mentioned the PES candidate was only 20 seats behind the EPP candidate but prior to going to the Council they struck a deal where the EPP agreed to back the PES candidate remaining as president of the european parliament for them not to contest the nomination.

As for only 'have regard' and under no obligation, that is actually the interesting issue that I understand was heavily debated.

As I stated, the process that was followed was argued primarily from the PES in parliament and as far as I understand it hasnt been taken to the european courts yet to make a ruling but the major parties did side with the PES on the issue with only the AECR opposing the process

We need to remember that this is the first time the elections took place so frankly the 2014 and 2019 elections will more then likely set the precedent for all future elections. The AECR holds that there is a tenious grounds for the president to be elected and if the issue is ever forced to the point of going to court that may well be how it is read like you have. But equally if the elected candidate is selected consistently for the initial few elections the court might rule against how the AECR and you read it.

Exciting (for politics) times.

We could argue that the European Council ignores the top candidate as nominated from the European Parliament and chooses another candidate, but then they'll find potentially their candidate blocked when they have to go back to parliament as a whole and parliament votes against them.

This is false.

When Americans cast their vote in a presidential election, they usual;y select "Electors for: (Donald J Trump)", i.e. the Presdidential candidates' names are usually on the polling card.

In any event, these electors then go on to elect a President.

I think you need to look into Faithless Electors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)

This process is significantly diluted in Europe. We vote for candidates or parties (depending on whether a party list system or STV regime exists), but these candidates cannot, with certainty, assure us that their 'candidate' will ever make it to the ballot box.

In the US, at least you know what list of candidates the electors will vote upon, as soon as the parties have chosen their candidate after their respective conventions. That candidate will be in the running

The candidates were known prior to going to the ballot, as I've highlighted numerous times, they were named and held debates etc. In fact you can argue it's stronger then the american system because you cant have a faithless elector with the MEPs

This is false.

You've gotten it back-to-front. The nominee to the Presidency of the European Commission is proposed not by Parliament, but by the European Council, and is then presented for election by the Parliament.

Not back to front more that I left out a step

It goes nominee from european elections largest party

Selected by the council (and voted if one is called and its not unanimous, which was the case with Juncker as David Cameron called for a vote, which he lost)

Voted on by the entire parliament individually (this is step I left out)

Then he forms a Commission with the council's support

The commission as a whole is voted on by parliament

smjm

Not the best news for Ireland:

'George Osborne looks at corporation tax cut to attract overseas investors'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/george-osborne-looks-at-corporation-tax-cut-to-attract-overseas-investors

Inquitus

smjm wrote: »

Not the best news for Ireland:

'George Osborne looks at corporation tax cut to attract overseas investors'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/george-osborne-looks-at-corporation-tax-cut-to-attract-overseas-investors

If the UK is not part of the EU Single Market, then they can cut their Corp Tax rate to zero and it will have no impact on us.

LiamoSail

Osbourne has both ambition and holds the Brexit "told you so" card. Id imagine the next PM will move quickly to demote him and get their own Brexit supporting voodoo economist in

Suryavarman

Inquitus wrote: »

If the UK is not part of the EU Single Market, then they can cut their Corp Tax rate to zero and it will have no impact on us.

Being out of the single market will most definitely handicap Britain. But I think you're overestimating just how much it would do so.

Inquitus

Suryavarman wrote: »

Being out of the single market will most definitely handicap Britain. But I think you're overestimating just how much it would do so.

If they are not part of the EU then a company cannot put all its European profits through the UK as they do today with Ireland, so a cut in UK Corp tax will not encourage any relocation of the likes of Amazon, Ebay and Google to the UK.

K-9

Inquitus wrote: »

If the UK is not part of the EU Single Market, then they can cut their Corp Tax rate to zero and it will have no impact on us.

As the article says, they were cutting the rate anyway in the EU.

I'm not actually sure if there are any rules saying you can't have a zero rate, countries need to have a standard uniform rate, Ireland scrapped the 10% rate and went fine, we'll bring in a 12.5% rate for everybody then!

As I say when it comes to our rate, the tax rules are probably more important than the actual rate.

K-9

Suryavarman wrote: »

Being out of the single market will most definitely handicap Britain. But I think you're overestimating just how much it would do so.

Depends on a cost benefit analysis I suppose. Low CT rate vs. any tariffs if no trade deal. Not as simple as that obviously but if Britain can make itself very attractive in other ways...

That might include lower wages though!

Suryavarman

Inquitus wrote: »

If they are not part of the EU then a company cannot put all its European profits through the UK as they do today with Ireland, so a cut in UK Corp tax will not encourage any relocation of the likes of Amazon, Ebay and Google to the UK.

I can't comment on the ins and outs of corporate tax law but there is more benefits from cutting the corporation tax than companies relocating to a country. I'd imagine the positives of getting rid of the corporate income tax could outweigh the negatives of leaving the single market.

K-9 wrote: »

As the article says, they were cutting the rate anyway in the EU.

I'm not actually sure if there are any rules saying you can't have a zero rate, countries need to have a standard uniform rate, Ireland scrapped the 10% rate and went fine, we'll bring in a 12.5% rate for everybody then!

As I say when it comes to our rate, the tax rules are probably more important than the actual rate.

I believe all EU nations need to have a corporate tax rate above 10%. Likewise VAT needs to be above 15% apart from a few goods such as food and other essentials.

Inquitus

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can't comment on the ins and outs of corporate tax law but there is more benefits from cutting the corporation tax than companies relocating to yours. I'd imagine the positives of getting rid of the corporate income tax could outweigh the negatives of leaving the single market.

If the UK cuts its corp tax rate and they our outside the Single Market the only impact it has is to reduce the corp tax rate UK domiciled corporations pay or the rate Multinationals pay on their UK income, so all in all it has little to no impact outside of the UK.

As an aside it will certainly not offset the negatives of leaving the EU, or even come close, it will put a hole in the UK Gov's tax take that will have to be made up elsewhere, VAT, PAYE etc etc.

Suryavarman

Inquitus wrote: »

If the UK cuts its corp tax rate and they our outside the Single Market the only impact it has is to reduce the corp tax rate UK domiciled corporations pay or the rate Multinationals pay on their UK income, so all in all it has little to no impact outside of the UK.

As an aside it will certainly not offset the negatives of leaving the EU, or even come close, it will put a hole in the UK Gov's tax take that will have to be made up elsewhere, VAT, PAYE etc etc.

Don't be so certain. Lee and Gordon (2004) find that a 10 percentage point reduction in corporation tax could increase growth by 1-2%. Djankov et al. (2008) find that increasing the corporate income tax by 10 percentage points reduces the investment to GDP ratio by 2 percentage points.

It would be far better for the UK to make up the difference through another tax anyway. Of all the major taxes corporation taxes have the worst deadweight losses. Increasing VAT or introducing a carbon tax would be far better than having a corporation tax.

Enzokk

If the UK cuts their corporate tax rate, what would the impact be on the voters? We know they are already angry at the lack of tax being paid by companies, how will they react when the companies that they perceive aren't paying taxes already gets to pay less on the amounts they declare? It could turn against the government and could allow another string in the bow for UKIP to show the people how the politicians don't care for them but care for the corporations.

K-9

Enzokk wrote: »

If the UK cuts their corporate tax rate, what would the impact be on the voters? We know they are already angry at the lack of tax being paid by companies, how will they react when the companies that they perceive aren't paying taxes already gets to pay less on the amounts they declare? It could turn against the government and could allow another string in the bow for UKIP to show the people how the politicians don't care for them but care for the corporations.

Irish people tend to be concerned about fairness in CT and the various tax avoidance schemes when surveyed yet we've a low tax rate!

I was trying to find a post from yesterday that was saying maybe Norway, Switzerland and Britain could come together for EU deal talks, not sure if it was this thread.

The problem would be the 3 countries would want different things. Norway have freedom of movement, something Switzerland doesn't want and Britain seems split on, going on poll research. The Swiss don't want EU banking laws whereas Britain would. Norway doesn't have CAP or fisheries controlled by the EU but pays a fair whack for that, plus neither them or Switzerland has any representatives in Brussels, naturally enough. Diplomacy by fax I think is the expression used in Norway.

The point is if Britain wants no freedom of movement, concessions will be looked for elsewhere by the EU, probably money which was a big campaigning point. But you can't get everything you want in life.

mickoneill31

smjm wrote: »

Not the best news for Ireland:

'George Osborne looks at corporation tax cut to attract overseas investors'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/george-osborne-looks-at-corporation-tax-cut-to-attract-overseas-investors

In other news, he says their budgets are not going to be as good as before

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/01/george-osborne-scraps-2020-budget-surplus-plan

and says income tax will probably have to go up

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/mortgages-bills/george-osborne-warns-of-spending-cuts-and-tax-hikes-after-brexit-11364070571092

Cutting corporate tax while reducing spending and increasing income taxes won't be popular.