Brexit Referendum Superthread

BoJack Horseman

Amerika wrote: »

he might be leaving the post in as little as two weeks

No.
Should Brexit occur, Dave will be gone by the following Monday.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no, that’s not the choice on offer.

The choice is the UK can remain in the EU and help to steer it, or withdraw and have no say in its future direction.

The choice on offer is remain or leave.

Whether having insider influence in the EU is more important that what is perceived by some as drawbacks of EU membership is you subjective opinion. Others are allowed to have a different one.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

It can’t possibly be any more favourable than that which currently exists, can it?
Nobody is arguing that the UK only exports services, but services are a major export. I believe the UK exports about £50 – 60 billion in services to Europe every year.
Zero hour contracts have nothing to do with the EU.
The London property boom has nothing to do with the EU.
I thought the UK were going to do all sorts of free trade deals with everywhere in the world in the event of Brext? Won’t that mean lots of cheap Chinese steal?
Once again, nothing to do with the EU.
Referenda are almost always a terrible idea.

Somebody did argue that the UK only really exports services (and several people thanked him for his submission !). Services are a major export, and I think the figure would be much higher than that, btw, considering total UK exports to the EU are £30Bn per month.

Low pay in Britain is connected with uncontrolled EU migration. Broadly speaking, approximately half of the migrants from the EU each year compete for low paid jobs,and zero hour contracts are a consequence of an oversupply of low paid labour.

The lack of primary school places, the lack of seats on trains, the lack of NHS capacity are all exacerbated by uncontrolled EU migration.

It is in Britain's long term interests to protect its steel industry. That is an issue which enjoys cross party support in Britain and it is likely that the Conservative Government will save it, in the event of Brexit.

I believe that we should have Referenda on important issues such as this. I think that the excesses of unelected elites need to controlled. Despite the failure of the EU's economic policy and significant levels of opposition to it in all member states it continues to grow in power. Win or lose, the Brexit campaign will serve as a reality check for the EU and will benefit all the member states in the long term.

Mec27

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0617/796253-brexit/

Bill Gates speaks of dangers of Britain leaving.

Calina

Sam Russell wrote: »

Boris is pro-European. He was born in Brussels.

He was born in New York.

VincePP

whatever_ wrote: »

I don't think that the murder of Jo Cox will have any impact on the Referendum outcome. I do agree that the Leave Campaign has probably peaked too early.

I do think that the murder of Jo Cox does once again highlight the poor state of Mental Health Services in Britain. I also think that it highlights the growing immoderate behaviour in society - for example the very personal attacks that politicians make on one another.

If that murderer was anything though, he was probably a keyboard warrior. I think this episode should remind us all (and I include myself in this) to adopt a more moderate tone in online discussions. There are only actually a few of us engaged in this debate, and if we were sitting on a bus discussing all this we would not be "pouring vitriol on one another" just because we hold differing views.

I disgree - It will probably prove to be the trigger rather than a reason and i think it woke up a lot of the more educated people that they need to take a step back and look at the situation with a more realistic view rather than he herd mentality of those who target the uneducated classes who will follow them like sheep over the precipice.

In Ireland we see similar with a lot (not all) of the SF and PBP followers who look at them with awe and never question anything they say.

Once it comes to putting pen to paper, a swing against these types occurs - agian in an Irish example the polls were showing near 18% SF support but on the day it was just over 13%.

So unless the polls this weekend show over 56% support for brexit, the swing back will gain momentum.

I'll call it 56% in favour of staying. - Pure guess, and my guess last week with friends was that it would be 50/50, but the swing back looks to be quite substantial.

Rjd2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Boris is pro-European. He was born in Brussels. He is ambitious and sees the Brexit campaign as an opportunity to grab power from Cameron - you can see his body language gives him away. The smirk of the buffoon gives him away - he does not believe in what he says.

If Cameron wins, he needs a night of the long knives to rid his Cabernet of these troublesome Brexiteers. How can he trust them or them him?

I see your point, but surely he should be attempting to reunite the party rather than settle scores, guys like Gove and Boris will have plenty of backers, alienating them and their supporters is only good news for Labour.

Gael23

The political consequences of a vote to leave?
Cameron would have to resign but would the entire government fall?

BoJack Horseman

Gael23 wrote: »

The political consequences of a vote to leave?
Cameron would have to resign but would the entire government fall?

No... they have fixed term parliament, so the government remains as is...

But DC would certainly fall on his sword and there would be a leadership election.

May & Gideon would stand zero chance.
Boris would be favourite, but I think the Tory base would pick Gove if he ran.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

Services are a major export, and I think the figure would be much higher than that, btw, considering total UK exports to the EU are £30Bn per month.

Why does that mean the annual figure for services should be higher?

whatever_ wrote: »

Low pay in Britain is connected with uncontrolled EU migration.

The jury is still very much out on that.

whatever_ wrote: »

Broadly speaking, approximately half of the migrants from the EU each year compete for low paid jobs…

What are you basing that on?

whatever_ wrote: »

…zero hour contracts are a consequence of an oversupply of low paid labour.

So why don’t we have zero hour contracts all over the EU then?

whatever_ wrote: »

The lack of primary school places, the lack of seats on trains, the lack of NHS capacity are all exacerbated by uncontrolled EU migration.

Maybe, but migration is not the cause. If I need to use public transport or go see a doctor, I don’t care if I’m putting additional pressure on the systems in question – I pay my taxes, just like the natives, so I'm entitled to avail of the services.

The problem is not migrants. The problem is poor services. I mean, look at the chaos involving Southern Rail at the moment – is that the fault of immigrants? Or is it the fault of poor transport planning?

whatever_ wrote: »

It is in Britain's long term interests to protect its steel industry. That is an issue which enjoys cross party support in Britain and it is likely that the Conservative Government will save it, in the event of Brexit.

You didn’t answer my question.

whatever_ wrote: »

I believe that we should have Referenda on important issues such as this.

I don’t. If the British electorate really wants to leave the EU so badly, then why have they elected MPs that are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining?

whatever_ wrote: »

I think that the excesses of unelected elites need to controlled.

By returning power to the House of Lords?

stefanovich

Amerika wrote:

Looks like the Brits might just have their own version of Donald Trump with which to deal with. The first meeting between Prime Minister Johnson and President Trump could be one for the history books.

He's a legend.

Sam Russell

whatever_ wrote: »

I think that the excesses of unelected elites need to controlled.

It is the choice of each member state how their Commissioner is chosen. Not one member state has an election of any type for their appointed Commissioner.

Democracy begins at home. The current British Government was elected by only 36% of the popular vote. Some would cite that as a democratic deficit.

The practice of elected officials would start if at least one country did it. The European Parliament has increased powers so at least that is a start. However, democracy is only good if your side wins - not so good if the other lot wins.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Boris is pro-European. He was born in Brussels.

Notwithstanding that this is incorrect, is it your thesis that someone born in Brussels is a Europhile by birth?

Belgium's Eurosceptic party the same share of the vote as the Irish Labour Party. And probably a brighter future, too.

djpbarry wrote: »

And he has Turkish ancestry.

Yes, his Pops was a great man for the EU one hundred years ago.

Honestly some of this stuff is comic lads. A distant relative born in Asia Minor... what???

There are plenty of second/ third generation immigrants voting to leave the EU on grounds of freedom of movement, and there's absolutely nothing inherently contradictory about that.

You can favour controlled migration, and still be opposed to freedom of movement.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Notwithstanding that this is incorrect, is it your thesis that someone born in Brussels is a Europhile by birth?

No, I am wrong. He is not a Europhile, he is an naked opportunist. Probably just a Borisphile.

BoJack Horseman

Sam Russell wrote: »

Democracy begins at home. The current British Government was elected by only 36% of the popular vote. Some would cite that as a democratic deficit.

Could be worse Sam.... could be Ireland & 25%

Thank god we've got Donald Tusk & Junker to show us the meaning of democratic legitimacy!

Sam Russell

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Could be worse Sam.... could be Ireland & 25%

Thank god we've got Donald Tusk & Junker to show us the meaning of democratic legitimacy!

Well, our 25% is only for the largest party - or really the only party forming the Government. However, there is no pretence that FG have any mandate to govern on their own.

If all of the Commission had been elected by universal suffrage in their own country, then there would be more legitimacy for both Tusk and Junker.

We manage to elect our President by universal suffrage even though the post is mainly ceremonial. I am sure in a similar way we could elect a Commissioner.

Bob24

Sam Russell wrote: »

If all of the Commission had been elected by universal suffrage in their own country, then there would be more legitimacy for both Tusk and Junker.

There would be a conflict of interest though.

The job of a commissioner is to serve the European people, whereas a commissioner elected in Ireland would only have a mandate from the Irish people (and would rightly be under constant suspicion that it is favouring the interest of its Irish voters in the area it is in charge of, over the interest of Europeans as a whole).

Either you have a system like the European parliament where MEPs are clearly representing the interest of their own country. Of if you want a small elected government it has to be an EU-wide election with all Europeans voting amongst the same pool of candidates so that whoever gets elected has full legitimacy to represent all Europeans.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

a commissioner elected in Ireland would only have a mandate from the Irish people (and would rightly be under constant suspicion that it is favouring the interest of its Irish voters...

...Of if you want a small elected government it has to be an EU-wide election with all Europeans voting amongst the same pool of candidates so that whoever gets elected has full legitimacy to represent all Europeans.

How can you reconcile the two statements?

If the public would be provincial when electing a Commissioner (and they would), why would they be less provincial when electing a Government? A direct democratic vote would favour the large MSs.

Bob24

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

How can you reconcile the two statements?

If the public would be provincial when electing a Commissioner (and they would), why would they be less provincial when electing a Government? A direct democratic vote would favour the large MSs.

If a candidate needs to get votes in only one country to be elected, it will naturally appeal the specific interest of that countries voters only.

If it needs all country's voters to be elected it has to focus on the most consensual interest across the EU and not just one country's.

Basically if you transpose the voting system Sam Russell suggested to Irish politics, you would have each county elect a minister.
Many issues with that:
- which county gets which minister would be a tough question (and do we really need exactly as many ministers as there are counties?)
- large counties would feel underrepresented if a tiny county get they own minister (the minister from Dublin would alone represent the interest of a million people, while groups of just 40000 people in Longford would have their own minister)
- The government would be formed by random individuals who haven't chosen to work together and have completely different interests to represent to please their voters: impossible decision making

djpbarry

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not one member state has an election of any type for their appointed Commissioner.

Nor should they. The last thing we want is commissioners pandering to elements of the electorate within their "home" states.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, his Pops was a great man for the EU one hundred years ago.

Honestly some of this stuff is comic lads.

If you say so.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are plenty of second/ third generation immigrants voting to leave the EU on grounds of freedom of movement, and there's absolutely nothing inherently contradictory about that.

You can favour controlled migration, and still be opposed to freedom of movement.

You can, but of course in the context of this referendum campaign, "controlled" just means "less".

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

If a candidate needs to get votes in only one country to be elected, it will naturally appeal the specific interest of that countries voters only.

If it needs all country's voters to be elected it has to focus on the most consensual interest across the EU and not just one country's.

Approximately 1 in 3 European voters live in France or Germany. That's enough to win an election in a community where, as you posit, voters are locally loyal.

If so, we can infer that a candidate will promise to favour two countries out of 28, and could quite easily command a Government.

That simply isn't a good idea. We need greater democracy in Europe, but it cannot be as simple as a direct vote.

Bob24

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Approximately 1 in 3 European voters live in France or Germany. That's enough to win an election in a community where, as you posit, voters are locally loyal.

If so, we can infer that a candidate will promise to favour two countries out of 28, and could quite easily command a Government.

That simply isn't a good idea. We need greater democracy in Europe, but it cannot be as simple as a direct vote.

I didn't say small countries would like it. I said it was one of the only 2 option i could see form a European "government" to be elected (and explained why the other system wouldn't work by explaining what the equivalent in Ireland would be).

Your rection (which I understand) is why I personally think having an directly elected European government is impossible. It would only work if there was one European nation which was OK to vote together in the same election and feel confident the outcome will serve everyone (and your reaction shows that you aren't confident this would be the case as you feel French and Germans voters would band together and trample over small countries rather than each voter in these countries looking at the various options and go for the one which represents their political ideology the most).

Also you do have to realise that if for you it is obvious that 4 million Irish should elect their own minister while 80 million Germans also only elect one minister, the Germans wouldn't' necessarily agree with you. And quite rightly so as it means an Irish voter would have 20 times more weight than a German voter in government decisions (unless you would be OK with Ireland always getting very junior commissioner positions and Germany always getting the head commissioner, but I assume you wouldn't for the same reasons you already outlined).

Inquitus

UKIP really scraping the barrel now.

https://twitter.com/zcbeaton/status/743397112923230212

stefanovich

djpbarry wrote: »

If you say so.
You can, but of course in the context of this referendum campaign, "controlled" just means "less".

No. It also means better. It also means not discriminating against people from commonwealth countries who frankly have more right to be in the UK than eastern Europeans.

Inquitus wrote: »

UKIP really scraping the barrel now.

https://twitter.com/zcbeaton/status/743397112923230212

It's reality though. Calais is full of desperate people who's only thought is to get to the UK.

Inquitus

stefanovich wrote: »

It's reality though. Calais is full of desperate people who's only thought is to get to the UK.

Brexit won't change that, these are not EU migrants, they are migrants from outside the EU, so whether Britain is in the EU or outside the EU, this problem doesn't go away.

A Dub in Glasgo

stefanovich wrote: »

It's reality though. Calais is full of desperate people who's only thought is to get to the UK.

Are these EU citizens then?

BlitzKrieg

stefanovich wrote: »

No. It also means better. It also means not discriminating against people from commonwealth countries who frankly have more right to be in the UK than eastern Europeans.

The Uk discriminated against its own commonwealth long before the EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1968

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2012/01/marking-50-years-commonwealth-immigration-controls

djpbarry

stefanovich wrote: »

It also means not discriminating against people from commonwealth countries who frankly have more right to be in the UK than eastern Europeans.

I heard Farage make a similar argument not too long ago, but it’s total nonsense. UKIP want to see net immigration reduced to a few tens of thousands, but immigration from outside the EU is currently far higher than that.

stefanovich wrote: »

Calais is full of desperate people who's only thought is to get to the UK.

The situation at Calais has been blown out of all proportion by the British media. There were/are, at most, a few thousand people at Calais, which is tiny relative to the numbers of people flooding into Turkey, for example.

stefanovich

djpbarry wrote: »

I heard Farage make a similar argument not too long ago, but it’s total nonsense. UKIP want to see net immigration reduced to a few tens of thousands, but immigration from outside the EU is currently far higher than that.
The situation at Calais has been blown out of all proportion by the British media. There were/are, at most, a few thousand people at Calais, which is tiny relative to the numbers of people flooding into Turkey, for example.

They want it to drop to sustainable rates with fairness for everyone. How is that nonsense? Net migration is currently the population of Newcastle per year. That's insanely huge.