Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

Trompette wrote: »

And I repeat, pro-EU will never explain that, they will let you bellive that this money is from EU institutions and due to all the mainstream media are pro-EU, so nobody will tell you.

Well, as you have just indicated, the information is freely available, so…

Trompette wrote: »

Yes, the entire budget and more.

No, it contributes a share, just like every other EU state.

Trompette wrote: »

For me it's very difficult to understand that a lot of people don't even know this basic fact.

They do. You have just assumed that they don’t.

Trompette

@djpbarry
I am not English language native and I am afraid I don't understand you correctly.
I don't consider here the aspect of if UK state want or not to found the science research but only if UK will have more or less money globally.
You question was:

Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
The UK covers the ERC’s entire budget? Really?

My answer was:

Originally Posted by Trompette View Post
Yes, the entire budget and more.

Your answer was:

No, it contributes a share, just like every other EU state.

I understand that you don't agree with me and in case of Brexit, you think UK will have less money. Could you confirm, please?

djpbarry

Trompette wrote: »

I understand that you don't agree with me and in case of Brexit, you think UK will have less money. Could you confirm, please?

In the event of Brexit, it is extremely likely that there will be less funding for scientific research in the UK. This is not just my opinion – it is an opinion that has been expressed by many prominent UK-based scientists.

Trompette

OK, I understand.
In case of Brexit, after found to the same science as today, UK will have €4.9 billion in the pocket.
Now UK state is a democracy, so, people have to vote to the politics they want, majority will win.
No other country will dictate what is the best for them. This is what is called sovereignty.

Exactly was Scofflaw said: An awful lot of babies go out with that bathwater.
You don't want your sovereignty and democracy because you are afraid your government will cut the science research found!
Don't you think it could be better to convince other UK citizen to continue to found the science after gaining sovereignty, instead as convince to stay in EU?

djpbarry

Trompette wrote: »

In case of Brexit, after found to the same science as today, UK will have €4.9 billion in the pocket.

You've not been following the news then?

George Osborne is currently delivering his latest budget, detailing £3.5 billion worth of spending cuts.

Scofflaw

Trompette wrote: »

OK, I understand.
In case of Brexit, after found to the same science as today, UK will have €4.9 billion in the pocket.
Now UK state is a democracy, so, people have to vote to the politics they want, majority will win.
No other country will dictate what is the best for them. This is what is called sovereignty.

Freely deciding with other countries is also an exercise of sovereignty - the EU does not dictate to the UK.

Exactly was Scofflaw said: An awful lot of babies go out with that bathwater.
You don't want your sovereignty and democracy because you are afraid your government will cut the science research found!
Don't you think it could be better to convince other UK citizen to continue to found the science after gaining sovereignty, instead as convince to stay in EU?

He prefers to exercise hie democratic right to persuade other UK citizens to stay in the EU, which comes with a variety of other benefits that the UK alone cannot offer its citizens as well as being a way round the possibility of the research budget being cut.

As I said above, this is not a case of wanting or not wanting sovereignty and democracy - it is a case of preferring a shared use of sovereignty in a larger space, and a similarly larger democracy.

If one doesn't start off with the belief that democracy is only possible at the national level, it's very hard to come to the conclusion that democracy is only possible at the national level.

You are arguing, I think, from that belief. Why should a UK citizen prefer to vote only in the UK, have an effect only within the UK, have no outlet for his democracy but the UK?

Is there just one UK, where what is good for one is good for all? If not (and clearly it's not true), what is it that makes confining democracy within a national border better for the citizen?

Perhaps you mean that by confining democratic decision-making about the UK within the UK, the UK as an entity in itself is thereby freer and more independent? Not the UK voter themselves, necessarily, but the UK as a country in the world?

I hope you don't, because that is the core tenet of fascism, nationalism's less socially acceptable brother. Fascism says that the citizen is best served by a strong state, as free as possible of outside control. Do you believe that to be the case? If you don't, what is your justification for restricting democracy to national boundaries?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

As it is in the EU's favour I'd say the UK will be glad.

Would be interesting to see how much trade with Ireland makes up in those figures.

I suppose the EU will lose the fifth largest economy in the world but will still have the 4th, 6th, 8th, 14th, 17th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th and so on inside it.

A significant loss, but the sheer size of the EU and easy access to it remains significant. Would it make more sense for the aforementioned car companies to move to the EU and export to the UK from there?

Makes more sense operating from the much larger market which is the EU. Operating under a new trade deal also seems like adding more red tape.

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps you mean that by confining democratic decision-making about the UK within the UK, the UK as an entity in itself is thereby freer and more independent? Not the UK voter themselves, necessarily, but the UK as a country in the world?

I hope you don't, because that is the core tenet of fascism, nationalism's less socially acceptable brother. Fascism says that the citizen is best served by a strong state, as free as possible of outside control. Do you believe that to be the case? If you don't, what is your justification for restricting democracy to national boundaries?

cordially,
Scofflaw

:eek: Seriously? Fascism? What a load of rot!. Being served by a strong independent state isn't fascism at all. It is that sort of hysteria that typifies the scaremongering of IN people.I believe we are best served by having a strong independent state within borders where people are similar to ourselves. Nationality is not something you can gloss over. If you met an Irish man in Timbucktoo you'd sit down and have a great chat and a beer, if you could get it, because Irishness is a shared concept between a certain group of people. You wouldn't react the same way to a Finn or an Italian or a German even though they are also European. Dismissing this bond has been a feature of EUfanatics for decades but it is visceral and real and part of every citizens makeup. Therefore you feel more attachment to and feel part of a government that respects the national boundary of your people.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

I believe we are best served by having a strong independent state within borders where people are similar to ourselves.

Pardon me, but I think you dropped your veil.

Palmach wrote: »

If you met an Irish man in Timbucktoo you'd sit down and have a great chat and a beer, if you could get it, because Irishness is a shared concept between a certain group of people.

No, it isn't. You’re conflating shared experience with shared ethnicity.

djpbarry

New study published today by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics - doesn't make pretty reading for the Leavers:

The most 'optimistic' post-Brexit scenario for UK trade - in which the country adopts Norway's model and remains part of the European Union (EU) single market - would see average incomes fall by £850 per household.

...

In the baseline estimate, after accounting for fiscal savings, the effect of Brexit is equivalent to a fall in UK income of between 1.3% and 2.6% - that is, a decline in average annual household income of between £850 and £1,700 per year.

...

In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (£4,200 to £6,400 per household). This is similar to the decline in UK GDP during the global financial crisis in 2008-09.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/brexit/press1.asp?index=4991

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

Pardon me, but I think you dropped your veil.
.

As always people who feel there is a good and valid argument in the UK leaving are faced with snide remarks implying racism. That following on from a post that suggested fascism.:rolleyes:

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

As always people who feel there is a good and valid argument in the UK leaving are faced with snide remarks implying racism.

No, people who make remarks about keeping people who are somehow "dissimilar" to themselves outside their state's borders are rightly going to be faced with accusations of racism.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

:eek: Seriously? Fascism? What a load of rot!. Being served by a strong independent state isn't fascism at all. It is that sort of hysteria that typifies the scaremongering of IN people.

Sigh. Picked up on the scare word, only. Look, fascism is a political philosophy that says exactly this:

I believe we are best served by having a strong independent state within borders where people are similar to ourselves.

Insofar as you're putting forward a political philosophy rather than mere self-justifications for your own emotional preferences, that's the philosophy you're espousing.

Nationality is not something you can gloss over. If you met an Irish man in Timbucktoo you'd sit down and have a great chat and a beer, if you could get it, because Irishness is a shared concept between a certain group of people. You wouldn't react the same way to a Finn or an Italian or a German even though they are also European. Dismissing this bond has been a feature of EUfanatics for decades but it is visceral and real and part of every citizens makeup. Therefore you feel more attachment to and feel part of a government that respects the national boundary of your people.

It is certainly real, but only some people choose to build political philosophies on it. Other people would say that if you're unable to connect with a German or a Finn, the problem is likely to be your own unwillingness to step outside your cultural box in order to do so.

One can also point out the logical inconsistencies in the view quite easily, since it's a position based on emotive rejection rather than anything more rational. I'd have to make less effort to connect with a fellow Dubliner than with someone from Mayo, and even amongst Dubliners there are groups I'd be more or less comfortable with - and I don't doubt the same is true for you.

So where does your boundary-drawing end? At what point on such a gradient of cultural comfort does the nation-state suddenly appear, and why? Is there really such a sharp step that you'd rather have a beer with a hard lad from inner city Limerick (or a Traveler, just so long as they're Irish) than, say, someone of a similar background to yourself who happens to be from another country?

Or are you, in fact, just trying to erect a political philosophy on a set of self-justifications for your personal feelings of comfort with strangers? Not everyone is like you or me - a fact which some people are able to embrace, while others can't. Just because it's more difficult to be comfortable with people from a different background doesn't mean anything other than that we should try harder, rather than rejecting them as bogeymen. Because down that path do lie some very dark and unpleasant outcomes, whereas the worst that can be said for the other path is that some people find it a bit uncomfortable. And I'm not sure why we should arrange the world just to suit people who want to stay stuck in their own mud.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

No, people who make remarks about keeping people who are somehow "dissimilar" to themselves outside their state's borders are rightly going to be faced with accusations of racism.

Ok lets put it this way. If you had 50 thousand Afghan Muslims and 50 thousand Norwegian Christians which group would be more likely to integrate smoothly into Irish society? To suggest religion and culture are variables that pose no barrier to integration and social cohesion is a fallacy.

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. Picked up on the scare word, only. Look, fascism is a political philosophy that says exactly this:



Insofar as you're putting forward a political philosophy rather than mere self-justifications for your own emotional preferences, that's the philosophy you're espousing.



It is certainly real, but only some people choose to build political philosophies on it. Other people would say that if you're unable to connect with a German or a Finn, the problem is likely to be your own unwillingness to step outside your cultural box in order to do so.

One can also point out the logical inconsistencies in the view quite easily, since it's a position based on emotive rejection rather than anything more rational. I'd have to make less effort to connect with a fellow Dubliner than with someone from Mayo, and even amongst Dubliners there are groups I'd be more or less comfortable with - and I don't doubt the same is true for you.

So where does your boundary-drawing end? At what point on such a gradient of cultural comfort does the nation-state suddenly appear, and why? Is there really such a sharp step that you'd rather have a beer with a hard lad from inner city Limerick (or a Traveler, just so long as they're Irish) than, say, someone of a similar background to yourself who happens to be from another country?

Or are you, in fact, just trying to erect a political philosophy on a set of self-justifications for your personal feelings of comfort with strangers? Not everyone is like you or me - a fact which some people are able to embrace, while others can't. Just because it's more difficult to be comfortable with people from a different background doesn't mean anything other than that we should try harder, rather than rejecting them as bogeymen. Because down that path do lie some very dark and unpleasant outcomes, whereas the worst that can be said for the other path is that some people find it a bit uncomfortable. And I'm not sure why we should arrange the world just to suit people who want to stay stuck in their own mud.

cordially,
Scofflaw

My wife is not Irish. I have lived in other countries and have friends from there. I have no problem with foreigners or those from other cultures. I am merely pointing it is easier allow people into your country when they are similar to yourself. I am not saying bar those who are dissimilar but do so slowly and methodically something not possible with open borders. See my question above re Afghans and Norwegians.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Ok lets put it this way. If you had 50 thousand Afghan Muslims and 50 thousand Norwegian Christians which group would be more likely to integrate smoothly into Irish society? To suggest religion and culture are variables that pose no barrier to integration and social cohesion is a fallacy.

Might I ask whether or not you think that Britain is taking a positive step if it leaves? If so why?

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

Might I ask whether or not you think that Britain is taking a positive step if it leaves? If so why?

To be honest I don't know. The Remain arguments seem to be all economic, the Leave arguments all non-economic. The UK is probably the most likely country in the EU that could leave and flourish outside the EU but it is a risk. Certainly the UK would better off being semi-detached from the EU without leaving. Not sure how that can be done but the UK will strive to achieve it.

K-9

Historically Britain would be a big player semi-detached from the EU. I'm sure it would still be significant. Has the EU contributed to the UK not being a world power anymore? I'd say no. Will it become a world player again, outside the EU? I'd say no.

Interesting fact: The free movement of people was suspended between the Republic and the UK was suspended between 1939 and 1953. More interesting was that Northern Ireland was included in that emergency state.

Keeping the free borders as they are certainly isn't a given. 2 years ago it wouldn't have been an issue, now it's the biggest issue facing the EU, and probably the main reason Britain wants to leave.

The other thing is, if the vote passes, the British Union is in more danger of breaking up than a European Union splintering.

Sam Russell

Cameron has negotiated the new terms for UK staying within the EU. He has not negotiated the terms that would prevail if the UK left the EU. Would it be Switzerland, or Norway, or Iceland, or Algeria?

If the UK votes by a small margin to leave, but Scotland, NI, and Wales all vote to stay, whither the UK - breakup with just England leaving? Or do they have a rerun to get the right answer?

eire4

K-9 wrote: »

Historically Britain would be a big player semi-detached from the EU. I'm sure it would still be significant. Has the EU contributed to the UK not being a world power anymore? I'd say no. Will it become a world player again, outside the EU? I'd say no.

Interesting fact: The free movement of people was suspended between the Republic and the UK was suspended between 1939 and 1953. More interesting was that Northern Ireland was included in that emergency state.

Keeping the free borders as they are certainly isn't a given. 2 years ago it wouldn't have been an issue, now it's the biggest issue facing the EU, and probably the main reason Britain wants to leave.

The other thing is, if the vote passes, the British Union is in more danger of breaking up than a European Union splintering.

I would say if Britain leaves the EU then Britain breaking up is very likely. The Scots have made it very clear they will push another independence referendum and given the vote to stay in the EU is very strong in Scotland it would probably mean a yes vote to leave Britain.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

My wife is not Irish. I have lived in other countries and have friends from there. I have no problem with foreigners or those from other cultures.

This is why I usually use "one" rather than "you".

I am merely pointing it is easier allow people into your country when they are similar to yourself.

You are doing rather more than that.

I am not saying bar those who are dissimilar but do so slowly and methodically something not possible with open borders. See my question above re Afghans and Norwegians.

We don't entirely have open borders, either in the sense of not checking who comes into the country nor in the sense of anyone being allowed to reside here, even under EU free movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

Ok lets put it this way. If you had 50 thousand Afghan Muslims and 50 thousand Norwegian Christians which group would be more likely to integrate smoothly into Irish society? To suggest religion and culture are variables that pose no barrier to integration and social cohesion is a fallacy.

More of a straw man, really. That some groups will require greater effort to be made in integration (on both sides, or on their side) is true, but is only what it is - you can choose to make the effort, or not, either way.

I would suspect, personally, that if we had such numbers of either group, they would probably form equally cohesive communities with a similar degree of integration, and the main difference would then be that one community would look more different to Irish eyes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

More of a straw man, really. That some groups will require greater effort to be made in integration (on both sides, or on their side) is true, but is only what it is - you can choose to make the effort, or not, either way.

I would suspect, personally, that if we had such numbers of either group, they would probably form equally cohesive communities with a similar degree of integration, and the main difference would then be that one community would look more different to Irish eyes.

Given today's events we can see that this is simply pc wishful thinking.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

Given today's events we can see that this is simply pc wishful thinking.

Were we involved in a war with Norway, we could expect the same kind of activity from Norwegian immigrants - much as the UK had to put up with from Irish immigrants.

Asymmetric warfare isn't dictated by ethnicity, and ascribing the actions of people who consider themselves combatants in such a war to some kind of innate vicious tendency is massively ironic on a thread in an Irish political forum.

Just to drive that point home:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Were we involved in a war with Norway, we could expect the same kind of activity from Norwegian immigrants - much as the UK had to put up with from Irish immigrants.

What war is Belgium involved in? Where did they invade? The perpetrators of the attacks were Belgian citizens born and reared there right? We are getting slightly off topic with this one but it does illustrate the failure of allowing massive amounts of people with radically different values into your country without a cohesive policy. It is the vast amounts of immigrants to the UK, in the hundreds of thousands annually that has driven UKIP and some Tories to push for a Leave. If those immigrants were Canadians or New Zealanders no one would be as exercised by the whole thing.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

What war is Belgium involved in? Where did they invade? The perpetrators of the attacks were Belgian citizens born and reared there right?

Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks 'in revenge for Belgium's role fighting militants in Syria and Iraq'

The group claimed that the attacks left more than 230 dead and wounded, although Belgian authorities put the figure slightly lower at at least 31 killed and under 200 injured.

It said Belgium was targeted as "a country participating in the international coalition against the Islamic State", although the country only carried out a limited bombing campaign confined to Iraq before stopping its air strikes in June 2015.

More than 100 supporting troops and military advisers are believed to remain in the country.

Hope that helps you understand - only takes a quick google.

We are getting slightly off topic with this one but it does illustrate the failure of allowing massive amounts of people with radically different values into your country without a cohesive policy. It is the vast amounts of immigrants to the UK, in the hundreds of thousands annually that has driven UKIP and some Tories to push for a Leave. If those immigrants were Canadians or New Zealanders no one would be as exercised by the whole thing.

It does illustrate that if you have a large immigrant community from countries which you've engaged in military action against, or are occupying, that can be a security problem. The history of the Irish community in the mainland UK rather illustrates that - similarly, some of those involved have been second generation immigrants born in the UK.

None of this is new, all of this has echoes in past terrorism, and the racist response to it is nothing new either - it's part of what perpetuates the cycle.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hope that helps you understand - only takes a quick google.

It does illustrate that if you have a large immigrant community from countries which you've engaged in military action against, or are occupying, that can be a security problem. The history of the Irish community in the mainland UK rather illustrates that - similarly, some of those involved have been second generation immigrants born in the UK.

None of this is new, all of this has echoes in past terrorism, and the racist response to it is nothing new either - it's part of what perpetuates the cycle.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One large problem. The perpetrators were Belgian citizens and furthermore the Police were attacked by protesters when they arrested Abdeslam. So they weren't Iraqis or even second generation. I believe the Bombers were of Moroccan origin. A country that has never been bombed by Belgium.

Furthermore what stands out is the response has been anything but racist with the chattering classes doing absolutely anything but naming the ethnicity or religion or whatever of the perpetrators.It is this perceived deceitfulness that drives people into the arms of AfD or UKIP.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

One large problem. The perpetrators were Belgian citizens and furthermore the Police were attacked by protesters when they arrested Abdeslam. So they weren't Iraqis or even second generation. I believe the Bombers were of Moroccan origin. A country that has never been bombed by Belgium.

Shrug. Belgium was bombing ISIS, and ISIS is hardly something confined to national borders - an idea, rather than a country.

Furthermore what stands out is the response has been anything but racist with the chattering classes doing absolutely anything but naming the ethnicity or religion or whatever of the perpetrators.It is this perceived deceitfulness that drives people into the arms of AfD or UKIP.

That's a justification again, but an interesting one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

A survey from Nature this week shows overwhelming opposition to Brexit among UK scientists:

Of the 907 researchers working in the United Kingdom who were polled, 83% said that they wanted Britain to stay in, whereas 12% were in favour of a Brexit.

...

Of those who intend to vote in the referendum, 78% said that a Brexit would harm UK science; 9% said that it would be beneficial.

www.nature.com/news/scientists-say-no-to-uk-exit-from-europe-in-nature-poll-1.19636

Nidgeweasel

Feel free to merge if this has been dealt with previously.

I would be grateful if anybody could suggest some literature or opinion pieces on the above.