Brexit Referendum Superthread

Lemming

Foghladh wrote: »

Do we not fulfill many of the characteristics of a federal union?

Fulfilling some of the characteristics and actually being a federal union are two very different things.

Exactly what are you trying to imply when you say "Federal Europe" Foghladh? When people say "Federal Europe" - at least here in the UK at any rate - it's innuendo for a "United States of Europe". Paranoid, ignorant idiocy ostensibly spouted by the same clever people who believe a) Turkey will join the EU any time soon, b) an EU army is going to be formed and c) Kayne West is going to become President of the Moon, all because the Sun & Daily Fail newspapers said so.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree that the Commission went too far here and Ireland was right to appeal. You don't through the baby out with the bathwater though.

If the EU isn't working for Britain then I think out it comes. I'm not suggesting that Ireland should leave but the EU is going too far in many areas and it will only go further. States cooperating together is brilliant but encouraging divesting a huge amount of control isn't right.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm still waiting on you to tell me how much of UK law is decided in Brussels. I'd also appreciate a list of these entites to which the UK has surrendered its sovereignty.

It varies from 10 to 70 percent depending on what yardstick you use.. This information is all publically available online. You should do your own research.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Dear oh dear. You seem to insist on hysterically repeating this while nobody here has called for the referendum to be ignored.

Actually this has been suggested in previous posts on this thread if you look back.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How would you suggest it be implemented if you were the PM by the way?

I think May's approach is right. The resounding themes of the referendum were take back control of UK law and of UK borders. If you watched the coverage of the debate this was obvious. It was also obvious as to when and how polling changed towards leave. It was when the Vote Leave campaign brought immigration to the fore and David Cameron didn't have an answer and Jeremy Corbyn said there wasn't a need for an answer.

The concession that the UK needs is small. Controlling unskilled labour is essential. If the UK doesn't come away with more control on this issue it'll be letting people down like Cameron did before the referendum.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Switzerland must accept free movement, pay into the EU coffers and uphold the full burden of EU regulation save for financial services because it has no access to the single market for those. You said before that this wasn't Brexit as people voted for it. Why are you hoisting up Switzerland now?

I'm not. I'm saying that since it's outside the EU it can control it's own trade deals. I'm not saying that the UK should have exactly the same deal as Switzerland. Britain should argue for a British model. That's obvious. Why would it argue for a Norwegian model or a Swiss model. I'm simply saying that because Switzerland is outside the EU that it has a trade deal with China. One that the UK can't have as a member of the EU. That's an obvious advantage of being outside.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . .I'm not. I'm saying that since it's outside the EU it can control it's own trade deals. I'm not saying that the UK should have exactly the same deal as Switzerland. Britain should argue for a British model. That's obvious. Why would it argue for a Norwegian model or a Swiss model. I'm simply saying that because Switzerland is outside the EU that it has a trade deal with China. One that the UK can't have as a member of the EU. That's an obvious advantage of being outside.

Well, no. It's only an advantage if (a) you do in fact have a trade deal with China, and (b) it's more advantageous, from your point of view, than the any trade deal with China you might participate in if you remained a member of the EU. (And of course you can substitute any other country for China in this statement.)

And there are a couple of sobering considerations here.

The first is that by leaving the EU (and not joining the EEA) the UK loses an extremely good trade deal with 27 other countries that account for about half the UK's foreign trade.

The second is that by leaving the EU the UK drops out of all the trade deals with third countries that it currently participates in. That's a large network of trade deals.

So, basically, by leaving the EU, the UK basically resets its trade deal count to zero. If you like trade deals, that's not a good thing.

The UK is of course then free to negotiate whatever trade deals it likes (or can) starting - if they have any sense - with a trade deal with the EU. But that's unlikely to be as good a trade deal as the one they will be giving up, since the political reality is that the UK government does not want the kind of models of relationship with the EU under which that would be possible.

As for negotiating trade deals with third countries, the UK will be free to try and negotiate trade deals with particularly suit its circumstances - deals putting particular focus on the freedom to sell financials services, for example, where the UK has a particular strength. But, as against that, in negotiating trade deals the UK clearly has much less muscle than the EU has; it's a much smaller player with much less to offer. So, while the UK will be free to target its dream deal, it will not be well-positioned actually to achieve it.

To be blunt, the idea that the UK can construct for itself a network of trade deals that are as far reaching as, and more advantageous than, the deals it has as an EU member strikes me as fairly unlikely. They'll be sliding all the way down the snake back to square one, and they'll have to try and rebuild what they have given away with much reduced bargaining power.

Zubeneschamali

Lemming wrote: »

Exactly what are you trying to imply when you say "Federal Europe" Foghladh?

A United States of Europe.

Again - this is not a secret plot. There has been a European Federalist movement longer then The EU/EC/EEC has existed. Many of the features of todays EU come directly from their ideas.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The concession that the UK needs is small. Controlling unskilled labour is essential.

The UK needs a concession from the EU?

I thought they were a proud sovereign nation once again!

Also, no.

demfad

Another day another legal challenge to Brexit.

This one is based on the idea that the EU and the single market are distinct entities. You can have access to the single market without having access to the EU (Switzerland). Also, Croatia was an EU member for 9 months before joining the EU. So you can be one without being in the other.
If it succeeds it means that there would also have to be parliamentary approval for leaving the Single market.

Foghladh

Lemming wrote: »

Foghladh wrote: »

Do we not fulfill many of the characteristics of a federal union?

Fulfilling some of the characteristics and actually being a federal union are two very different things.

Exactly what are you trying to imply when you say "Federal Europe" Foghladh? When people say "Federal Europe" - at least here in the UK at any rate - it's innuendo for a "United States of Europe". Paranoid, ignorant idiocy ostensibly spouted by the same clever people who believe a) Turkey will join the EU any time soon, b) an EU army is going to be formed and c) Kayne West is going to become President of the Moon, all because the Sun & Daily Fail newspapers said so.

I'm not implying anything. I'm simply stating that, contrary to your statement that a federal Europe will never exist, the EU already has exclusive competency on a number of key policies. I'm not claiming that it's surreptitiously doing so or that nations are unknowingly signing up to these treaties. The intent for a closer level of cooperation is pretty obvious

oscarBravo

Foghladh wrote: »

The intent for a closer level of cooperation is pretty obvious

Cooperation ≠ federation.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU isn't working for Britain then I think out it comes. I'm not suggesting that Ireland should leave but the EU is going too far in many areas and it will only go further. States cooperating together is brilliant but encouraging divesting a huge amount of control isn't right.

The referendum was only called to prevent the Tory party splintering. It was nothing to do with how well the EU was working.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This information is all publically available online. You should do your own research.

You made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think May's approach is right. The resounding themes of the referendum were take back control of UK law and of UK borders. If you watched the coverage of the debate this was obvious. It was also obvious as to when and how polling changed towards leave. It was when the Vote Leave campaign brought immigration to the fore and David Cameron didn't have an answer and Jeremy Corbyn said there wasn't a need for an answer.

Again, there are multiple reasons for leaving including a funding boost for the NHS. The mandate is solely to leave.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The concession that the UK needs is small. Controlling unskilled labour is essential. If the UK doesn't come away with more control on this issue it'll be letting people down like Cameron did before the referendum.

Why is this essential? Sources please?

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cooperation ≠ federation.

But the kind of co-operation that has been going on in Europe is a kind of federation - a European elected Parliament, European courts with Europe-wide jusrisdiction.

That's why we keep having to hold referenda - we are handing authority over to the EU.

And this was the idea right from the start: The Union of European Fedaralists was founded in 1946. The European Movement was founded in 1947 (Pat Cox was president for several years).

The Council of Europe was formed in 1949 in London, and was suggested by, among others, Winston Churchill, who called in a speech in 1946 for "a kind of United States of Europe".

Foghladh

oscarBravo wrote: »

Foghladh wrote: »

The intent for a closer level of cooperation is pretty obvious

Cooperation ≠ federation.

That is true. However the delegation of governance to a central body is pretty much the definition of federation and that is what exists with regards to commercial policy in the EU. The Eurozone countries also are subject to federated control in respect to monetary policy. I don't claim that the union is fully federated but some aspects of key policy do fall into that bracket

Billy86

Just got a call off a recruitment company to put me forward for a role assisting a very large global company migrate their staff from the UK to Ireland...

Zubeneschamali

Foghladh wrote: »

I don't claim that the union is fully federated but some aspects of key policy do fall into that bracket

With the UK leaving, I expect the Federalists to get louder.

oscarBravo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the kind of co-operation that has been going on in Europe is a kind of federation - a European elected Parliament, European courts with Europe-wide jusrisdiction.

That's true, up to a point. The differences between the EU and (say) the USA are equally telling, however: the member states of the EU are still sovereign nations and have the power to enter into international agreements in their own right, except where they've agreed to cede sovereignty to the EU. The member states of the USA have no such international sovereignty. So Ireland can sign up to a treaty banning land mines; Wyoming can't.

That's why we keep having to hold referenda - we are handing authority over to the EU.

Well, sort of. I'd argue that we keep having to hold referenda because of a questionable decision by the Supreme Court, coupled with the fact that the Irish electorate believe they're automatically entitled to a referendum on every treaty change without bothering to understand the reasons, and it would be too politically costly for a government to try to ratify a treaty change without a referendum. But that's just me.

And this was the idea right from the start: The Union of European Fedaralists was founded in 1946. The European Movement was founded in 1947 (Pat Cox was president for several years).

The Council of Europe was formed in 1949 in London, and was suggested by, among others, Winston Chuirchill, who called in a speech in 1946 for "a kind of United States of Europe".

There won't be a United States of Europe until the sovereign member states are prepared to cede all sovereignty in international relations, which I don't see happening any time soon.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

There won't be a United States of Europe until the sovereign member states are prepared to cede all sovereignty in international relations, which I don't see happening any time soon.

It's happening now, but very slowly. It started a long time ago and will continue a long time into the future.

I don't know where in this continuous process you would draw a line and say "Now we have a federal Europe".

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

There won't be a United States of Europe until the sovereign member states are prepared to cede all sovereignty in international relations, which I don't see happening any time soon.

Time will tell. Adversity can bring people closer or split them apart. At the moment we have an ultra right wing socially ultra conservative wave trying to break across Europe and beyond. These right wing authoritarian movements in Europe have connections to Putin (many set up bogus European electoral entities to 'verify' the Crimean referendum for Putin inc. M LePen). Some also have connections to Stephen Bannon Trumps senior advisor. Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and their sponsor Rebakah Mercer are the tea party de facto. Bannon has connections to the identarian movement in the US (alt-right) (and a long connection with UKIP). This movement (idenatarian) started in France and is in many European countries. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. A barely disguised common objective amongst all these people/organisations is the destruction of the EU.

If they succeed the chances of a major war are increased massively. Just look at European imperial history over the last thousand years.

A more integrated Europe would be more difficult to break up and is preferable to the destruction of the EU.

A necessary step would be the establishment of a proper ECB to remove the link between banks and States.
Germany were reluctant about this but that may change.

I don't want to sound over dramatic but people should be under no illusion of the threat that we are under.

If Brexit did not happen, the external threat would recede greatly.

BoatMad

If they succeed the chances of a major war are increased massively. Just look at European imperial history over the last thousand years.

conveniently ignoring the fact that western european powers are a shadow of themselves, a european war is, as a result entirely unlikely

A more integrated Europe would be more difficult to break up and is preferable to the destruction of the EU.

there is no evidence for either of those contentions,

I don't want to sound over dramatic but people should be under no illusion of the threat that we are under.

the classic "fear mongers" sound bite

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

conveniently ignoring the fact that western european powers are a shadow of themselves, a european war is, as a result entirely unlikely

If Russia uses Europe's current weakness to invade to it's West then a European war is entirely likely. Look at the 1930's if you don't believe me.
Putin has given every sign that he intends to expand Russian territory. More than this in Ukraine/Crimea.

there is no evidence for either of those contentions,

Clearly, a more integrated Union is by definition more difficult to prise apart.
LePen, Bannon, Putin, UKIP, identarians in Europe and USA, and ALL the other far right parties in Europe have taken this position. Bannon has setup Breitbart news in London, Paris and Berlin with the express aim of encouraging right wing groups there to weaken or leave the Union. This man is the main advisor to the president of the United States. He has spent a lot of time with Nigel Farage for years. Perhaps you feel Bannon/Breitbart are pro EU?

BoatMad

If Russia uses Europe's current weakness to invade to it's West then a European war is entirely likely. Look at the 1930's if you don't believe me.
Putin has given every sign that he intends to expand Russian territory. More than this in Ukraine/Crimea.

His expansion is limited by a failing economy and a very inefficient and outdated military. He has nothing to gain by any sort of significant expansion in former soviet union territories.

Its just fear mongering

Clearly, a more integrated Union is by definition more difficult to prise apart.

Not really, as article 50 remains a party of the treaty undertakings. Brexit is and will remain a one-off aberrant decision , IMHO. I don't believe there will be any further serious attempt to dismantle the EU

The forthcoming abject failure that will be Brexit , will serve as a warning of acting alone in a globalised economy.

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

His expansion is limited by a failing economy and a very inefficient and outdated military. He has nothing to gain by any sort of significant expansion in former soviet union territories.

Its just fear mongering

Can you substantiate that? This BBC article would seem to indicate that the West is worried. The Russian military operation has improved greatly since the 2008 Georgian war. They are also years ahead of the west in information warfare which we have seen in the Crimea, Ukraine and even in the US.

Alexander Dugin advised Putin to go into Ukraine and has also been supportive of any group (mainly fascist) hostile to western liberalism in Europe and the US. The methology for relaying this information and propaganda was developed by a man called vladislav Surkov. Surkov was the man who created the theatre that is Russian political life and the 'post-truth' phenomenum surely is exported from this. Dugin advised Putin not to beat the West militarily but to corrupt it from within. He believes that Trump will leave Russia to its hinterland (former USSR) and America will look inwards. He was one of the first to coin the phrase 'liberal elite'. How do you think these guys are faring?

Not really, as article 50 remains a party of the treaty undertakings. Brexit is and will remain a one-off aberrant decision , IMHO. I don't believe there will be any further serious attempt to dismantle the EU
The forthcoming abject failure that will be Brexit, will serve as a warning of acting alone in a globalised economy.

5 star in Italy have claimed they will pull out of the Euro and renegotiate. They don't need a referendum there. One more casualty like Italy or France would see a rapid disintegration, a second great recession and the end of western secular liberalism.

This would be a win for Dugin and co, and for the likes of Bannon, Farage, LePen and western fascist groups. As the structures for sustained cooperation would be gone 20th century history has shown that a war would soon follow.

K-9

Just on the Apple tax case, if it is ruled that we broke state aid rules, well that's the rules we signed up to, just like everybody else.

I'm not sure how much momentum there is for much more federalism and there doesn't seem to be a mood for a new, far reaching Treaty. There's enough to be done with the Euro since the crash implementing changes that should probably have been there from the start. Again we signed up to the currency. We need a proper Central Bank but as pointed out, it could take years for that to happen.

With the way the French election is turning it looks like there'll be less appetite to oppose Putin in the Western World, I don't see how that can be viewed as a good thing. It's maybe a safer option but that also means less opposition and highlighting of the regime.

BoatMad

5 star in Italy have claimed they will pull out of the Euro and renegotiate. They don't need a referendum there. One more casualty like Italy or France would see a rapid disintegration, a second great recession and the end of western secular liberalism.

This would be a win for Dugin and co, and for the likes of Bannon, Farage, LePen and western fascist groups. As the structures for sustained cooperation would be gone 20th century history has shown that a war would soon follow.

and aliens could land as well

neither of which are likely to actually happen , even in france LePen will not survive the second round

the UK was an outlier, ( for various reasons , that have been exposed here and elsewhere )

Peregrinus

Foghladh wrote: »

That is true. However the delegation of governance to a central body is pretty much the definition of federation and that is what exists with regards to commercial policy in the EU. The Eurozone countries also are subject to federated control in respect to monetary policy. I don't claim that the union is fully federated but some aspects of key policy do fall into that bracket

Well, as you point out, this isn't a simple binary, and that's true not just of the EU and its treaties but of a huge range of international treaties. Many bilateral and most multilateral trade deals include arbitration provisions whereby disputes about how the deal should operate are referred to some kind of arbitration body to make a ruling, and the parties are bound by the ruling. So if your test for federation is that there's a supranational central bodies which exercises powers over states that have been transferred to it by the states, there's an awful lot of federations around. And the UK, in leaving the EU and entering into its own trade deals, may simply be leaving one federation in order to enter others.

So, as with many political slogans, the notion that my enemies are stealthily moving towards a European federation and I am standing against that (or vice versa) may be a bit reductive and simplistic. The real point of difference between the two camps may not be so much whether to federate at all, but how to federate and with whom.

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

and aliens could land as well

neither of which are likely to actually happen , even in france LePen will not survive the second round

the UK was an outlier, ( for various reasons , that have been exposed here and elsewhere )

You could argue that France would not elect Marine LePen if there was an honest balanced public debate. The same could have been said about Donald Trump. Or Italy would not elect 5 star.
This excellent article by Buzzfeed shows exactly how the public debate in these elections have been highjacked by fake news sites and Kremlin propaganda.

As an example most of the fake news sites supporting Donald Trump emanated from the same town in Macedonia.

European leaders are taking this seriously now with the upcoming elections.

If the public debate in the upcoming elections continue to be influenced by fake news sites, Russian trolls and bots then all bets are off.

demfad

Here is a blog on how leave.eu contributed to winning the Brexit referendum a quote below.

“Numbers do not lie, quantifiable data will direct the message and the messengers. I’m going to follow the data”....

The use of the 300,000 (leave subscribers) were as a polling pool was for Cambridge Analytica to understand the different worldviews that existed in the pool for message development. This business worldview dislikes EU beaucracy. We believe they will respond to the message ‘Burn the legislation. Take back Control.’ The Cambridge Analytica data shows there’s a lot of these. We’ll put James Dyson up for this. Another worldview Cambridge Analytica would have found is large and hostile to immigration. They seek security. We believe they’ll come out for ‘Immigrants raise house prices. Stop them coming here and create affordable housing. Take back control.’ Nigel Farrage should lead on this. He can be as outrageous as possible. The result was that voices were put up to explain the benefits of immigration, but this was totally drowned out. The message was a dream for the Sun, Mail, and Express.

Note: Cambridge Analaytica, the polling company behind Leave.eu was also the polling company behind Trump's victory. Trump's White House senior advisor and former CEO of Breitbart news, Steve Bannon (who has known Farage and senior members of UKIP for years) is on the board of Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analaytica is owned by Robert Mercer (a fringe right winger) who was the money behind the SuperPAC who backed Trump.
KellyAnne Conway is another associate of Mercer/Bannon over the years.
His Daughter, Rebekah Mercer produced the film 'Clinton's money' with Bannon. She is on the transition team now in the Whitehouse.

Breitbart is setting up in Paris and I have a feeling that we will see Cambridge Analaytica make an appearance in the French presidential election. Putin's social media trolls and bots who are currently busy defeating Renzi's referendum in Italy, will be available to help with the French election by that time as they did with Brexit and US election. Putin has given financial backing to Le Pen and other European right wing movements.

Russia has given financial backing to Ms. Le Pen, a major critic of the European Union and Europe’s welcome mat for immigrants, and other organizations on the far right and far left in Europe.

If the Mercer team and Putin get to work unhindered and successfully on the French public debate then it will be a massive step towards their shared objective of destroying the EU.

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by-election in London, which they fought mainly on an anti-Brexit platform. Not sure if it will slow the the gallop of the Hard Brexiteers towards the cliff edge though.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by-election in London, which they fought mainly on an anti-Brexit platform. Not sure if it will slow the the gallop of the Hard Brexiteers towards the cliff edge though.

Well it was a 70% Bremain area so I could see it being used again in contested areas but not sure how well it would work on wider scale.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Well it was a 70% Bremain area so I could see it being used again in contested areas but not sure how well it would work on wider scale.

True but the huge swing on that platform highlights that access to the single market is a massive issue for at least half the UK population.
It might make it easier for the Theresa May to face down the hard Brexiters.
The mandate for hard Brexit is now under question.

Leonard Hofstadter

We should still be very, very happy. It reduces the Tory majority and hence reduces the odds of a hard Brexit.

It's also proof that however inconvenient the 'liberal elites' and the 'remoaners' may be, we still exist - and we too can and do vote and will have our voices heard. However small it may be, it's still proof that there are decent, open minded, tolerant people out there, who vote for tolerance and an outward looking nation. It's the first time in quite a while that decency has won out.

Yes, it was a strongly pro-EU constituency, and no, it does not mean that the Lib Dems are going to win every subsequent by-election, and nor does it mean there's going to be a reversal of the decision of the UK to leave the EU, but it does prevent the Tories from going to the polls next year (if the Lib Dems can take a marginal Tory seat like that in such spectacular fashion, nothing stopping them from taking all those marginal seats the Tories took off them in 2015) and makes it far harder for Britain to go for a hard Brexit - which would be a disaster for the UK and Ireland. Already the pound is touching on €1.195, the best it's been in quite a few months, and that is much needed relief for Irish businesses who export to the UK. It's also good news for UK buyers as there is less of a likelihood of prices rising by quite so much in the New Year (which we're expecting).

323

demfad wrote: »

If Russia uses Europe's current weakness to invade to it's West then a European war is entirely likely. Look at the 1930's if you don't believe me.
Putin has given every sign that he intends to expand Russian territory. More than this in Ukraine/Crimea.




Clearly, a more integrated Union is by definition more difficult to prise apart.
LePen, Bannon, Putin, UKIP, identarians in Europe and USA, and ALL the other far right parties in Europe have taken this position. Bannon has setup Breitbart news in London, Paris and Berlin with the express aim of encouraging right wing groups there to weaken or leave the Union. This man is the main advisor to the president of the United States. He has spent a lot of time with Nigel Farage for years. Perhaps you feel Bannon/Breitbart are pro EU?

Strange, is that not what the EU, USA and NATO have been doing in Ukraine??
They denounced an elected government, replaced it with the US-selected way extreme far right-wing,anti-semitic, white supremacist, administration and suggest making it a NATO member as part of NATO's push east.

The bulk of western media, that ridicule anyone who supported Brexit conveniently ignore the fact that Crimean's voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. How very our EU, the bureaucratic utopia where where only coerced second votes are recognized.