Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

This debate is about Brexit and so non-EU migration (which is an entirely different issue) is irrelevant.

No, it isn’t.

A key point of the “Leave” campaign revolves around border control and reducing immigration. But the UK already has the power to reduce levels of immigration substantially, because most immigrants arrive from outside the EU. Leaving the EU to reduce immigration makes absolutely no sense when greater reductions in immigration could easily be achieved while remaining in the EU.

Not that I believe reducing immigration is necessary, that is.

whatever_ wrote: »

I disagree. Many immigrants do not take up skilled work...

But many more do. The average immigrant has more skills and qualifications than the average native.

whatever_ wrote: »

...leaving the EU will not affect Britain's ability to attract skilled workers where it needs them.

Of course it will. Restricting an individual's right to remain in the country is obviously going to impact on the attractiveness of the UK as a place to work.

whatever_ wrote: »

By the way, we like our electoral system. It produces strong governments (of the left and of the right).

Define “strong”.

whatever_ wrote: »

Your comment is not worthy of someone who is supposed to be a moderator on this forum.

I’m not a moderator of this forum.

whatever_ wrote: »

Your Maths is wrong.

No, it’s not. The percentage of the UK’s exports that goes to the EU is far, far higher than the percentage of EU exports that goes to the UK.

whatever_ wrote: »

Whatever happens, Britain will continue to be an important trading partner with the EU.

Probably, but they can’t possibly secure a better deal outside the EU than the one they currently have.

whatever_ wrote: »

There is no evidence that a large trading block like the EU is any better at negotiating trade deals than a small one.

There’s quite a bit of evidence, actually.

whatever_ wrote: »

The EU still does not have a trade deal with the US.

The EU doesn't trade with the US?

whatever_ wrote: »

I can think of £7.5 billion reasons a year why Britain should leave the EU.

What the UK will save in budget contributions will be lost several times over in economic activity.

whatever_ wrote: »

Then there is the issue of welfare payments to economic migrants...

Yeah, we’ve all moved to the South East of England for the generous welfare payments, because £73 per week will get you really far in London.

whatever_

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it isn’t.

A key point of the “Leave” campaign revolves around border control and reducing immigration. But the UK already has the power to reduce levels of immigration substantially, because most immigrants arrive from outside the EU. Leaving the EU to reduce immigration makes absolutely no sense when greater reductions in immigration could easily be achieved while remaining in the EU


Not that I believe reducing immigration is necessary, that is.
But many more do. The average immigrant has more skills and qualifications than the average native.
Of course it will. Restricting an individual's right to remain in the country is obviously going to impact on the attractiveness of the UK as a place to work.
Define “strong”.
I’m not a moderator of this forum.
No, it’s not. The percentage of the UK’s exports that goes to the EU is far, far higher than the percentage of EU exports that goes to the UK.
Probably, but they can’t possibly secure a better deal outside the EU than the one they currently have.
There’s quite a bit of evidence, actually.
The EU doesn't trade with the US?
What the UK will save in budget contributions will be lost several times over in economic activity.
Yeah, we’ve all moved to the South East of England for the generous welfare payments, because £73 per week will get you really far in London.

I can't agree with anything you say. In general, you misrepresent me rather than challenging me with a reasonable argument. I can't be bothered debating with someone who does this. I stand by my point that a moderator should not argue in such immoderate and immature terms.

E.g. the EU does not have a trade deal with the US. I did not say the EU does not trade with the US. If you can't distinguish between a "trade deal" and "trading" then no wonder you cannot follow my arguments. The TTIP has been dragging on for years, with no end in sight (2020 maybe?). My point is the Britain will be able to negotiate trade deals quicker than this. Your response ? To try to imply that I am saying that the EU does not trade with the US. Laughable.

Your other arguments are on a similar level.

If you don't like it in Britain - leave. It's that simple. With luck, your outstanding employment opportunities or welfare benefits, free GP care, free dental care, free school places, strong government, strong economy, strong currency and yes, your train seat, will be better appreciated by a British citizen who properly understands the sacrifices that have been made by British people to achieve them.

BlitzKrieg

E.g. the EU does not have a trade deal with the US. I did not say the EU does not trade with the US. If you can't distinguish between a "trade deal" and "trading" then no wonder you cannot follow my arguments. The TTIP has been dragging on for years, with no end in sight (2020 maybe?). My point is the Britain will be able to negotiate trade deals quicker than this. Your response ? To try to imply that I am saying that the EU does not trade with the US. Laughable

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It took on average 5 years for free trade agreements to be made between the US and other states. Some like the north american trade agreement (1990 - 1994) went quicker because they were already in separate free trade agreements with the US prior to joining Nafta (the prior trade talks were not so short)[/font]

Some states took substantially longer (columbia 2004 - 2012) but the average is roughly 5 years from when negotiations have started to being signed.

The EU has been negotiating for only 3 years (negotiations started in 2013). To claim the EU is being slow on the matter is laughable when its still below the shortest free trade agreement timeline the US has signed yet (2001 - 2005, Australia) Other states that have been struggling to get a trade deal include New Zealand which has been negotiating since 2009 and still have not succeeded. negotiations with Malaysia have stalled out since 2008.

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You also ignore that the EU has already successful negotiated economic agreements with the US in the past. The Transatlantic economic agreement in 2007.[/font]

micosoft

whatever_ wrote: »

My point is the Britain will be able to negotiate trade deals quicker than this.

You might some have have missed the news over the last few weeks. The President of the United States (Obama) and the most likely Candidate to become next President of the United States (Clinton) have emphatically said that that will not be the case. The UK will "be at the back of the queue".

whatever_ wrote: »

Laughable.

Indeed.

djpbarry

whatever_ wrote: »

I can't agree with anything you say. In general, you misrepresent me rather than challenging me with a reasonable argument.

I’ve not misrepresented anything you’ve said. I’ve just deconstructed your argument, on a point-by-point basis, and shown it to be completely baseless. Pretty much everything you’ve said is inaccurate, but then, that’s par for the course for the Leave campaign.

whatever_ wrote: »

E.g. the EU does not have a trade deal with the US.

As pointed out above, it does. The EU and US are in the process of negotiating a more wide-ranging trade agreement (TTIP), but agreements already exist, such as the open skies agreement, for example.

whatever_ wrote: »

If you don't like it in Britain - leave. It's that simple.

Don’t worry, if the UK leaves the EU, I, like many of my colleagues, will be out of here.

whatever_ wrote: »

With luck, your outstanding employment opportunities or welfare benefits, free GP care, free dental care, free school places, strong government, strong economy, strong currency and yes, your train seat, will be better appreciated by a British citizen who properly understands the sacrifices that have been made by British people to achieve them.

Dental care in the UK is not free and I don’t use the train because it’s ridiculously expensive. Furthermore, like most relatively recent arrivals from the EU, I have never claimed welfare in any form.

And finally, I work for the big, new, shiny research institute that’s opening for business in London this year. It will be one of the largest in Europe - you may have read about it? You may also have read that the head of this institute is strongly opposed to the UK leaving the EU because it will make it far more difficult to attract scientists to the UK. The majority of staff here are not British and I believe roughly one third are from elsewhere in the EU.

So, good luck filling ours jobs with British nationals when we all leave.

Careful what you wish for.

BlitzKrieg

Well the express takes the cake for most charged headline of the whole debate so far

Brexit could save 'THOUSANDS of animals' from halal slaughterhouses abroad

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/667235/Brexit-save-thousands-animals-halal-slaughterhouses-EU-European-Union

Its specifically Halal.


Not Kosher (despite France having a much bigger Jewish population then the UK) but just only Halal and Foreign Halal that is the problem.

Lets ignore that right now the EU has little say on who you can sell your livestock to within Europe at the moment but focus on the idea that the big argument against the EU is to have less red tape so British industries can grow, but now the leave campaign is suggesting *more* redtape so that British industries can not sell to foreign Halal butchers...

The Randy Riverbeast

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well the express takes the cake for most charged headline of the whole debate so far




http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/667235/Brexit-save-thousands-animals-halal-slaughterhouses-EU-European-Union

Its specifically Halal.


Not Kosher (despite France having a much bigger Jewish population then the UK) but just only Halal and Foreign Halal that is the problem.

Lets ignore that right now the EU has little say on who you can sell your livestock to within Europe at the moment but focus on the idea that the big argument against the EU is to have less red tape so British industries can grow, but now the leave campaign is suggesting *more* redtape so that British industries can not sell to foreign Halal butchers...

Want to reduce their livestock exports in general. Im sure thats great news for farmers.

ambro25

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I work in animation at the moment.

Over half of the animators on the production are from outside the UK, we have french, Irish, Polish, Greek, Italian etc. All arriving with work offered.

The production couldnt happen otherwise. There are a lot of older traditionally trained animators in the UK and a lot of young ones just out of college, but the industry is sorely lacking that middle area that is needed. So most of our heads of departments were British with years of experience, our lead animators were all from around europe and our assistant trainee animators were mostly young english and welsh just out of college getting their first feature length job.

And thats the film/TV industry in the UK, there is always a substantial % of every crew or production that is from around europe. I've worked from Endemol to Pinewood (wll technically shepperton but its part of pinewood) right down to independent shorts and there are always european crew members filling skilled roles.


Thats why the film/tv industry backs staying: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/brexit-the-tv-industry-reacts/5103078.article

Good post, providing a real-life context grounded in factual experience for assessing pro-/anti- positions, and for highlighting real challenges that a (arguably, highly-successful globally) specialist subset of the UK service industry would face post-Brexit.

Regrettably, there have been too few of these to inform the debate.

Allow me to add mine. I work in intellectual property, am based in the UK (not London) and am non-British EU national with a British wife.

The substantial harmonising of IP laws and procedures achieved to date across EU Member States, including the EU, means that currently, it has never been easier and cheaper for UK businesses to obtain registered IP rights across EU Member States, lastly on March 23 with further changes to the European trademark and design registration system expanding the scope of enforcement and relief for IP owners and reducing filing and registration fees.

Brexiting means the UK would get kicked out of that system, no ifs or buts (the system is not open to EEA/EFTA members, so there is no possibility of "Brexiting but keeping in by agreement") and there would be a big question about what then happens to the UK 'share' of existing European trademarks and designs. Maybe that would be parted out from EU rights as backdated UK rights. There are no official plans about it, that I'm aware of. Meaning more costs to IP rights owners (procedural aspects/follow-up).

New European trademarks and designs applications would in any case cease to apply to the UK, meaning distinct UK trademarks and designs would be required. Meaning more costs to IP rights owners (EU + UK rights required, not 'just' EU (incl. UK) anymore).

UK firms would in any case lose their right of audience at the EUIPO for European trademarks and designs, and at WIPO insofar as international designs under the Hague system are concerned. Meaning non-EU (now including UK) IP rights owners would have to use EU (French, German, Irish... now excluding UK) IP firms instead for professional representation. Loss of profitable work for UK IP firms, more costs regardless for UK IP rights owners.

In patent matters, the 'European' patent system is still the misnomer which it always was (it is entirely unrelated to the EU in any way, shape or form: that system is entirely based on the European Patent Convention ('EPC') which is an international treaty signed by EU and non-EU countries, no trace of the EU anywhere in or near its statutes, rules, regs, bodies and case law). That won't change with a Brexit.

But, and this is a big but, in most lay people's minds (and particularly foreign non-EU ones), it is (wrongly) associated with the EU whence, following a Brexit, then US, Japanese, Chinese, Aussie, Kiwi <etc.> applicants for European patents are far more likely to retain Irish, French and German European patent practitioners than British ones, who -though still entitled to do the work just the same- will be perceived as 'out of the system' due to not being in the EU anymore.

The UK will also lose the implantation of half of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court ('UPC') and the jobs and EPO and EU funding for it, that was agreed to be located in London last year. The UPC has been in the making for 40-odd years and it is the only 'link' (and a very small/partial one at that) between the European patent system and the EU: it is a single Court established by treaty between the EU and the non-EU member states of the European patent system, and designed to litigate patent matters across (most "that matters", but not all of-) the EU in one place (with the London/Paris split based on technical subject-matter: biotech in London, mech eng/electric eng/<other> in Paris), rather than the long-dating, still current and eye-wateringly expensive country-by-country litigation system.

Paris will keep their half, London's will in all likelihood be relocated to Germany, and smart money would say in Munich where the European Patent Office is based, unless it goes to The Hague in the Netherlands where the EPO has it second largest implantation and which already has a plethora of high-level legal practitioners due to the long-standing presence of the International Tribunal and the International Arbitration Centre. Though Italy may also get a shout, now that they're (only just) signed up, and as a political sweetener since they still have 'zip' international IP bodies.

In all of the above, as a UK firm of IP practitioners, we would win some (UK rights replacing EP/EU rights) and lose more (EP/EU/intl design work). The same applies to the vast majority of the IP profession in the UK.

We would definitely lose more than we gain: the EP patent work is still the most profitable by far, and see above re. expected transfer of workload to France (a little) and Germany (mostly); and clients have now long been filing mostly EU and international rights due to the cost-benefit ratio (and they'd likely continue, but have EU [Irish/French/German] attorneys do that for them, since we would lose our right of audience at the EUIPO and WIPO), and we'd likely never actually get our right of audience at the UPC and so not be able to get hold of that highly profitable litigation work.

Personally, due to some of my qualifications (EU and non-UK), I'd still keep my personal right of audience at the EUIPO and possibly also at the UPC, so quids in for me any which way.

But, and again this is a big but, personally still, if Brexit then I plan to relocate to Luxembourg or Strasbourg...or maybe go back to Dublin. I will still be able to service UK and Irish clients from any of these locations, but would keep the EU/EP work as before and benefit from the anticipated transfer of workload. In business terms, the UK firm I currently work for would lose my productivity and profitability (6 figures) on top of the EU/EP work expected to go to the Continent. I'm not alone on that 'planned' boat, either.

No hard feelings, reading Brexiters, it's business, not personal (...though a bit of Schadenfreude may prove hard to resist, after all the fair warnings )

Cool_CM

On a lighter note, this should be fun:

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/09/eurotrash-is-back-for-one-night-only-on-the-eve-of-the-eu-referendum

Chips Lovell

Got my first text message yesterday from a friend who owns a business in England asking me if I knew anything about registering a company in Ireland.

Squeeky bum time.

eire4

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Got my first text message yesterday from a friend who owns a business in England asking me if I knew anything about registering a company in Ireland.

Squeeky bum time.

The latest 2 polls suggest this will be very tight. ICM's May 8th poll is 46-44 in favour of leaving while the YouGov poll of May 6 is 42-40 in favour of leaving effectively a dead heat right now.

Sam Russell

So it depends on turnout.

BlitzKrieg

Sinn fein are actually campaigning against brexit....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-to-campaign-against-brexit-in-eu-referendum-1.2476720

Yeah never letting go of this in all future treaty referendums


Down in Hammersmith watching the campaigners. Lib dems are being the reasonable voice so far. Their leaflets are not the overblown hyperbole of the tories nor fear mongering. Also highlighting elements not normally discussed. So kudos to them

A Dub in Glasgo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Sinn fein are actually campaigning against brexit....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-to-campaign-against-brexit-in-eu-referendum-1.2476720

Yeah never letting go of this in all future treaty referendums

Of course want the UK to remain, you do realise the implications on the island of Ireland if the UK leave?

BlitzKrieg

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course want the UK to remain, you do realise the implications on the island of Ireland if the UK leave?

Oh I do its just hilarious as to how many times I have been on the opposite end of the table to sinn fein when it comes to the EU and now I'm on the same side.

Feels odd.

K-9

They opposed joining and every European referendum since all right, but I think they are more Euro critical than even skeptic these days.

Contributor 2013

Interesting reading here. thanks to the posters.

LiamoSail

Wish SF would keep quiet. In much the same way the Northern Unionists were reportedly asked to stay quiet on the Better Together campaign for fear their involvement would harm it, I think SF's support could be equally toxic.

Worrying times for those of us working in the UK

A Primal Nut

I have mixed opinions about it. I think it would overall be bad for Ireland if Britain leave. But I can certainly understand the no side. I was always an EU supporter - supported both Nice and Lisbon treaties.

The EU is becoming too much of a nanny state. Take the recent regulations on E-Cigarettes - I don't smoke and never have but it's pointless legislation - the politicians thinking they know best for the small people - there is no reason this can't be something individual countries can deal with themselves. And who's actually making these decisions? Once our MEP's are elected we never hear anything. What's Mairead McGuinness' opinion on the regulation of e-cigarettes for example? No idea. Ironically the only MEPs we ever hear from are the ones are you against the EU such as Ming Flanagan. The rest of them disappear into a black hole of big salaries, expenses and zero accountability.

I don't know why people working in Britain are worried about their jobs - the likes of Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU and trade just fine with other European countries.

I would like to think the referendum would be a wake-up call for the EU that reform is badly needed to make it more democratic. At least the consensus that Europe is always right is being broken up by this.

But no doubt Ireland have benefited greatly from being in the EU financially, but supposed it feels more like bribery than actually the principle of the EU that makes it worthwhile.

It's interesting how things who switched - if I remember correctly opposition to Nice and Lisbon mostly came from the left, now it's mostly the left who want Britain to stay in the EU.

micosoft

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The EU is becoming too much of a nanny state. Take the recent regulations on E-Cigarettes - I don't smoke and never have but it's pointless legislation - the politicians thinking they know best for the small people - there is no reason this can't be something individual countries can deal with themselves.

So you think that there should be no regulation at all of a chemical substance being inhaled into somebodies lungs? I'm not sure how you find the pointless tbh - the World Health Organisation asked for regulation. You also think it's more sensible for 27 countries to individually bring in legislation on e-cigarettes than just one set covering the whole EU? This is nothing to do with a (Daily Mail trope) Nanny State but a basic function of a free trade area (what the EU was originally setup to do according to some Brexiters). The US have brought in similar legislation for the whole US and not state by state.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

And who's actually making these decisions? Once our MEP's are elected we never hear anything. What's Mairead McGuinness' opinion on the regulation of e-cigarettes for example? No idea. Ironically the only MEPs we ever hear from are the ones are you against the EU such as Ming Flanagan. The rest of them disappear into a black hole of big salaries, expenses and zero accountability.

Have you asked? Did you bother google it? Do you think Mairead should write to you personally on this topic?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't know why people working in Britain are worried about their jobs - the likes of Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU and trade just fine with other European countries.

I would like to think the referendum would be a wake-up call for the EU that reform is badly needed to make it more democratic. At least the consensus that Europe is always right is being broken up by this.

Well the terms of Norway and Switzerlands relationship are very well known. They comply with the rules, pay in and don't get any say. This is not what the Brexit campaign claim they will get.

But it would be useful if you suggest how the EU could be more democratic since you don't seem too interested in using your ability to contact your MEP for a simple matter as above. How do you think the EU could be made "more democratic"?

Sam Russell

micosoft wrote: »

Well the terms of Norway and Switzerlands relationship are very well known. They comply with the rules, pay in and don't get any say. This is not what the Brexit campaign claim they will get.

The trouble with the leave-ists is they do not know what they will get when they leave. Norway has a lot of oil and Switzerland has a lot of money. Neither are too fussed with paying into the EU (unlike the Brits) and are willing to comply with EU regulation with no say.

Britain could aspire to get a deal better than either, but the might end up like Iceland or even Algeria. If they vote to leave and then want to rejoin, they will have no opt outs that they currently have, and would have to join the Euro.

The opposition to Lisbon was about the lack of knowledge of what we were letting us in for, but it was adjusted with a bit of fudge and we voted Yes.

Brexit, if it goes ahead will be a disaster for NI and Ireland, aswell as for Scotland and the North of England. Maybe the SE of England might be OK but who knows?

Contributor 2013

micosoft wrote: »

So OpenEurope - a eurosceptic think tank in the UK held a fascinating mock negotiation between the Uk (represented by Malcolm Rifkind & Norman Lamont) and the other EU states (Ireland represented by John Bruton) most of home are ex Premiers/Prime Ministers from the various states. It's well worth viewing but two things really emerge:

- The Initial Negotiation will be tough.
- If the UK chooses Brexit the negotiations will be even tougher - no quarter will be given.

In short, what the Euro Sceptics fail to recognise again and again is that they are not negotiating with "the EU". They are negotiating with the other 27 states who have their own strong views on the future of Europe. In fact it's clear that there is real anger in continental Europe over Camerons solo run. There is a real lack of trust with Bruton asking how can we know if the this is the last time the UK comes looking to renegotiate.

LOL Can we see all 27 other states books again please? Somehow I doubt their GDP etc is matching up to what was quoted on their entry.

England wants to leave, let them, we will deal with the fallout of a crumbling euro again*, simple.

K-9

On e-cigs, 28 countries have greater power, think roaming charges as an example. It also makes sense for the e-cig companies as it is worth their while dealing with a market of 500 Million people rather than 4 million.

E-cigs are basically non regulated and people should only have to think of actual cigarettes...

We just don't know enough about them yet, if only we'd the knowledge 100 years ago about cigarettes. (I use an e-cig btw)

micosoft

Contributor 2013 wrote: »

LOL Can we see all 27 other states books again please? Somehow I doubt their GDP etc is matching up to what was quoted on their entry.

England wants to leave, let them, we will deal with the fallout of a crumbling euro again*, simple.

The UK joined in the seventies because it's economy was regarded as "the sick man of Europe" it was in such dire straits. UK manufacturing had collapsed.

If you look at other states books you will find (right now) that Germany is doing very well as is Sweden, Poland and many other EU nations with better economic fundamentals than the Sterling zone. This bizarre notion that Euro=Greece (1.2% EU GDP) but not Germany (20%) and that the UK=London and not the Economic dust bowls of the North of England and Wales (at 77% of avg EU GDP per capita) is par course for the "two legs bad, four legs good" mantra unable to consider the variation in a new currency block extending from the Mediterranean to the Arctic or not consider variation in the Sterling zone where economic policy is set only for the South East and non manufacturing work.

Regardless if England wants to leave it will damage everyone - mostly the UK, but certainly Ireland and to a lesser extent the continent. Given the basis of our current good relationship with the UK is due to the solid foundation the EU had provided (including a direct relationship to the Good Friday agreement) not only does Ireland have a view on Brexit we have a right and duty to explain to the UK electorate the very serious consequences that will arise from Brexit, economic and especially political in NI. If you want to bury your head in the sand on that fine.

Last time I checked the Euro still bought a cup of coffee and a "crumbly" biscuit. More countries hold Euros as their foreign reserves than sterling or any other currency other than the US$ by a factor.

A Dub in Glasgo

Contributor 2013 wrote: »

England wants to leave, let them, .

I know England has the majority of the UK population but England is not the same as the UK

micosoft

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trouble with the leave-ists is they do not know what they will get when they leave. Norway has a lot of oil and Switzerland has a lot of money. Neither are too fussed with paying into the EU (unlike the Brits) and are willing to comply with EU regulation with no say.

Britain could aspire to get a deal better than either, but the might end up like Iceland or even Algeria. If they vote to leave and then want to rejoin, they will have no opt outs that they currently have, and would have to join the Euro.

The opposition to Lisbon was about the lack of knowledge of what we were letting us in for, but it was adjusted with a bit of fudge and we voted Yes.

Brexit, if it goes ahead will be a disaster for NI and Ireland, aswell as for Scotland and the North of England. Maybe the SE of England might be OK but who knows?

Which comes down to them taking the laughable "Donald Trump" approach to negotiating. The British would do well to remember the last time they thought they could dictate to another bloc. Thatcher thought she could dictate to the Chinese continued British occupation of Hong Kong. Instead she was giving her orders by Zhou who spent the entire summit in Beijing spitting into a spittoon. She was so shocked at the hard-line negotiation that on leaving this was the result:

This could very well be Boris stumbling out of Berlaymont in a years time.

Scofflaw

A Primal Nut wrote:

Ironically the only MEPs we ever hear from are the ones are you against the EU such as Ming Flanagan. The rest of them disappear into a black hole of big salaries, expenses and zero accountability.

That's more than a little unfair. The reason you hear more of Ming than Sinn Fein, and more of Sinn Fein than the others, is largely the extent to which each are supported online by more vocal elements. Every online poll in Ireland gives support for SF at levels way above their support in any offline poll or election, and while I can't find any polls that specifically reference Ming, I don't doubt the same is true for him. So for a given level of trying to inform you about what they're up to, Ming will get hundreds of times the repeat coverage compared to an FG MEP (and even an FG MEP will get more repeat coverage than an FF MEP).

Plus, of course, there's a huge difference in the potential for viral spread of the kinds of output Ming does as opposed to, say, Sean Kelly. Euromyths have always been more popular than the complex explanations that debunking them requires, and equally more popular than real accounts of real politics. They're the fast food of information - containing next to no nutritious truth, but saturated in tasty shock and outrage, bad for the body politic but surprisingly addictive because they tap into existing mental patterns.

And that, in turn, helps build a follower/repeater base online, eager for their next tasty treat.

Essentially, Ming, and to a lesser extent SF, put out clickbait. More mainstream politicians don't. Clickbait works.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Wasnt that Nigel Ferrages stick with the European Parliament?

he'd sign up to speak at some random Parliament discussion on some obscure policy like the EU's position on rabbits or something similarily small and then go into a massive anti EU triade attacking the commission etc, get it recorded and put it up online so it looks like he's this plucky fighter getting in front of the EU and fighting the good fight and the People there all look at him with anger or boredom and wave him off like the bond villains he paints them as.

When in reality they are trying to sort out some minor detail and the people there are only the ones with a vested interest in rabbits or something and here is this random lunatic from the UK getting up in the middle and going of on some random rant about immigrants.

Of course you'd be annoyed.


It'd be the same as someone posting a *immigrants are bad* thread in the Doctor Who subforum.

djpbarry

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Wasnt that Nigel Ferrages stick with the European Parliament?

he'd sign up to speak at some random Parliament discussion on some obscure policy like the EU's position on rabbits or something similarily small and then go into a massive anti EU triade attacking the commission etc, get it recorded and put it up online so it looks like he's this plucky fighter getting in front of the EU and fighting the good fight and the People there all look at him with anger or boredom and wave him off like the bond villains he paints them as.

Here's a good example:

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I know England has the majority of the UK population but England is not the same as the UK

Not only that, but the SE of England is not England, but just where the wealth is concentrated. Look at where the Tories won seats in the last election (on 36% of the popular vote).

Also the Eurosceptics are only a part of the Tory party.