A+A on Brexit - The Return of the Living Dead

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

Mr Tusk actually said - referring to the general policy of many nations since the Second World choosing to increase their degree of economic and other types of co-operation:I've highlighted the word which you deliberately omitted.No comment needed :rolleyes:

Direct your ire at the Grauniad online editors:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Was it not the Guardian headline that omitted the word "political"?

The Guardian omitted it, but so did JPNelsforearm - I'm assuming, optimistically in hindsight, that JPNelsforearm went to the necessary trouble of fact-checking a story before posting it for pooh and giggles.

recedite wrote: »

Not that "political civilisation" means anything anyway.

Well, it's kind of the point which Mr Tusk is making.

silverharp

has this been talked about much?


http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

really crucial detail about the upcoming EU referendum has gone virtually unmentioned and it is probably the most crucial detail: Parliament doesn't actually have to bring Britain out of the EU if the public votes for it.

recedite

If you want to get technical about it, the parliament is only "advised" by the referendum, but equally the monarch is only "advised" by the PM. So the Queen would have the ultimate say over it. In practice however, they operate a system of precedent known as "the unwritten constitution of the UK" which basically means that if there are no surprise moves by anybody, then nobody's head gets chopped off and everybody is happy.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

has this been talked about much?

Nope, and I've seen it referred to only rarely - the fact that referendum is not legally binding upon the government of the day.

Given that around two-thirds of MP's don't want to leave, then, if the leave-side win, MP's will be required to vote against their conscience (avoid the usual jokes here). I can't be the only one wondering if, in this case, MP's might show some spine and defy a popular, but insane, political choice - and what instability might follow from that.

The likely departure of Scotland hasn't made many headlines either.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

If you want to get technical about it, the parliament is only "advised" by the referendum, but equally the monarch is only "advised" by the PM. So the Queen would have the ultimate say over it. In practice however, they operate a system of precedent known as "the unwritten constitution of the UK" which basically means that if there are no surprise moves by anybody, then nobody's head gets chopped off and everybody is happy.

Damned parliamentary convention. It does many things, including prevent me from having a meaningful vote in a general election simply because I happen to live in the constituency of the

Speaker of the House.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Damned parliamentary convention. It does many things, including prevent me from having a meaningful vote in a general election simply because I happen to live in the constituency of the Speaker of the House. MrP

Well Mr. P, if you don't like the democratic deficit, you can always Leave the constituency. Or if you're not that bothered by such things and just want to make a few quid for a while, you can Remain.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Well Mr. P, if you don't like the democratic deficit, you can always Leave the constituency. Or if you're not that bothered by such things and just want to make a few quid for a while, you can Remain.

I like where I live so I will do the British thing. Just have the occasional moan about it but otherwise not do anything.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

..so I will shall do the British thing..

MrP

FYP

robindch

It's impossible to say whether the current climate of xenophobia and hatred whipped up by the majority of the brexit crew has contributed directly to yesterday's murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, but indirectly?

The line between that hatred and the alleged murderer allegedly shouting "put Britain first" seems, to say the least, plausible:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36555996

Akrasia

Latest poll shows the Leave side with a 6 point lead with 1 week to go.

The Leave side also have an older demographic which are more likely to vote

This is a bit worrying so close to the vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-lead-ipsos-mori-who-will-win-leave-campaign-remain-european-union-a7084951.html

Mark Hamill

smacl

robindch wrote: »

It's impossible to say whether the current climate of xenophobia and hatred whipped up by the majority of the brexit crew has contributed directly to yesterday's murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, but indirectly?

The line between that hatred and the alleged murderer allegedly shouting "put Britain first" seems, to say the least, plausible:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36555996

I'd guess it would be potentially damaging to the leave vote, insofar as many more conservative types would want to distance themselves from this type of barbarity and vote accordingly. It is interesting that while one of the big moans by the brexit crew is 'all these immigrants taking our jobs' the feedback I'm getting from most of the companies I work with in the civil engineering sector in the UK is that they're struggling to find suitable employees, employ a lot of Europeans because of the local skilled labour shortage, and will find things very hard going if the European migrant labour force disappears. i.e. all these bloody migrants coming over and taking the jobs we either can't or won't do :rolleyes:

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

It's impossible to say whether the current climate of xenophobia and hatred whipped up by the majority of the brexit crew has contributed directly to yesterday's murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, but indirectly?

The line between that hatred and the alleged murderer allegedly shouting "put Britain first" seems, to say the least, plausible:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36555996

the Britain first seems to be debunked at this stage, the witness has a sign on his shop window saying nobody said anything like this. I assume he is fed up of reporters calling in.
Also I think the view of painting this as in equals good people and out equals bad people could be counter productive. its a democratic process and there are arguments on either side.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

Also I think the view of painting this as in equals good people and out equals bad people could be counter productive.

I'm not sure that's happening to any serious extent, though in my own experience, the people who strongly support "out" seem to be motivated primarily by fear, ignorance and very often hatred of people from other countries.

silverharp wrote: »

its a democratic process and there are arguments on either side.

There are no especially good reasons that I can think of to leave the world's largest trading bloc - all the more so if one expects to join it again shortly afterwards. And it is most unlikely to achieve any of the headline items which the "out" side are telling their supporters it will achieve.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that's happening to any serious extent, though in my own experience, the people who strongly support "out" seem to be motivated primarily by fear, ignorance and very often hatred of people from other countries.There are no especially good reasons that I can think of to leave the world's largest trading bloc - all the more so if one expects to join it again shortly afterwards. And it is most unlikely to achieve any of the headline items which the "out" side are telling their supporters it will achieve.

its a trading block with strings. the success of the EU is tied up now with the success of the Euro and lord knows what will happen to it in the next 10 years , there are reasons to want to distance themselves from it. At the end of the day if someone is gloomy about the whole EU/Euro project, voting to leave it makes sense whether there net benefits or not. Its all a big guess one way or the other.

pH

robindch wrote: »

It's impossible to say whether the current climate of xenophobia and hatred whipped up by the majority of the brexit crew has contributed directly to yesterday's murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, but indirectly?

The line between that hatred and the alleged murderer allegedly shouting "put Britain first" seems, to say the least, plausible:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36555996

https://twitter.com/Palomafaith/status/743800447232778240

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And it is most unlikely to achieve any of the headline items which the "out" side are telling their supporters it will achieve.

Nor is a Brexit likely to bring any of the calamities which the "in" side are threatening will happen.
IMO the outcome will make very little difference in the long term, one way or the other. The UK has already opted out of the euro currency, the Schengen common travel area, and has negotiated derogations on lots of EU legislation, especially anything to do with labour law. After leaving the EU they wouldn't be in a very different position to Norway and Switzerland, which position vis a vis the EU is not very different to the UK position today.
All they ever really wanted anyway was to be part of the EC free trade area, originally known as "the common market", which they can negotiate for during the 2 year wind down period (as specified by the EU for any state leaving the EU, in TEU Article 50).

However, its not in the interests of either campaign to admit this. The "in" campaign prefer to exaggerate the perils of leaving, while the "out" campaign for their part exaggerate the benefits of leaving.

pH

recedite wrote: »

Nor is a Brexit likely to bring any of the calamities which the "in" side are threatening will happen.
IMO the outcome will make very little difference in the long term, one way or the other. The UK has already opted out of the euro currency, the Schengen common travel area, and has negotiated derogations on lots of EU legislation, especially anything to do with labour law. After leaving the EU they wouldn't be in a very different position to Norway and Switzerland, which position vis a vis the EU is not very different to the UK position today.
All they ever really wanted anyway was to be part of the EC free trade area, originally known as "the common market", which they can negotiate for during the 2 year wind down period (as specified by the EU for any state leaving the EU, in TEU Article 50).

However, its not in the interests of either campaign to admit this. The "in" campaign prefer to exaggerate the perils of leaving, while the "out" campaign for their part exaggerate the benefits of leaving.

You can't post anything as reasonable as this, everyone knows that brexit is all about being racist and killing MPs.

It's entirely possible and reasonable to also think that whilst the overall ideas and goals of the EU are laudable, the current implementation is bloody awful, very undemocratic almost impossible to reform at this stage.

Anyway here's the crowdfunded "brexit the movie", yea I know it's an hour of racist hate-mongering and fear of those living in other countries, but I missed the call for killing those who disagree, perhaps someone could provide me with the timestamp?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that's happening to any serious extent, though in my own experience, the people who strongly support "out" seem to be motivated primarily by fear, ignorance and very often hatred of people from other countries.

To be honest, this is pretty much my experience so far too. Anyone I have thus far met that is voting leave fits the bill of "Little Englander" to a tee.

I am manning the "In Desk" in my town centre tomorrow, so it will be interesting to see what kind of characters I meet.

robindch wrote: »

There are no especially good reasons that I can think of to leave the world's largest trading bloc - all the more so if one expects to join it again shortly afterwards. And it is most unlikely to achieve any of the headline items which the "out" side are telling their supporters it will achieve.

I don't think there really are any good reasons.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

IMO the outcome will make very little difference in the long term, one way or the other. The UK has already opted out of the euro currency, the Schengen common travel area, and has negotiated derogations on lots of EU legislation, especially anything to do with labour law. After leaving the EU they wouldn't be in a very different position to Norway and Switzerland, which position vis a vis the EU is not very different to the UK position today.

Yes, if they want to retain single market access they'll have to continue to implement current and future EU legislation, contribute to the EU budget and allow the free movement of people.

All the things the Leave side want rid of.

The only real difference between N / CH and UK atm is that at least the UK gets a say in the EU legislation it has to implement.

Oh, and fish. Lots and lots of lovely fish (Norway obviously, not CH...) The same sh1te the lunatic fringe here were spouting a few years ago about how if we told the EU to go hang we could all gain billions from fishing, so who cares if everyone else is picking spuds or unemployed.

The whole bloody thing is a ridiculous waste of time and it's all really about that goon Cameron and the internal politics of his increasingly deranged party. A very dangerous game to play where you can win nothing you don't already have, but lose big if you lose. It's already done damage to the UK economy (and stoked up Scottish separatism again) even if they do vote to remain.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The whole bloody thing is a ridiculous waste of time and it's all really about that goon Cameron and the internal politics of his increasingly deranged party. A very dangerous game to play where you can win nothing you don't already have, but lose big if you lose.

Its worth remembering the reason for the referendum in the first place.
Prior to their last general election, Cameron's party were losing their traditional support base to UKIP. UKIP were promising to pull the UK out of the EU, but had no realistic chance of winning. Nevertheless, they could have taken enough votes to allow Labour to win that election. So Cameron's ingenious plan was to claw back these votes temporarily by promising to hold this referendum himself. His was the only party that could realistically offer to hold the referendum. The plan worked, and Cameron is the PM. So now its payback time for those borrowed votes.

Hotblack Desiato

Yes, the terrifying electoral might of UKIP which has managed to win a single Commons seat in its entire existence (and that an incumbent MP who defected from the Tories.)

It's really about keeping the right wing of his party from defecting, at least for now. But Eurosceptics are like rabid wolves, you can throw meat at them but you will never satisfy them and eventually they will devour you.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, the terrifying electoral might of UKIP which has managed to win a single Commons seat in its entire existence (and that an incumbent MP who defected from the Tories.)

It's really about keeping the right wing of his party from defecting, at least for now. But Eurosceptics are like rabid wolves, you can throw meat at them but you will never satisfy them and eventually they will devour you.

The only reason they only have one is first past the post voting. If we had PR they would have 54 MPs.

MrP

Bristolscale7

Had a look at the derogations the U.K. currently has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union
I'm not sure if the U.K. left it would make much difference at all since they are already operating outside so much EU policy. As I've said before, the democratic deficit is a real thing and the neo-liberal technocrats in Brussels could use kick to the crotch. If it comes at the cost of a strategic error by the U.K. so much the better.

De Gaulle had it right in 1967

. . . the Common Market is a sort of prodigy. To introduce into it now new and massive elements, into the midst of those that have been fit together with such difficulty, would obviously be to jeopardize the whole and the details and to raise the problem of an entirely different undertaking. All the more that if the Six have been able to build this famous edifice it is because it concerned a group of continental countries, immediate neighbors to each other, doubtless offering differences of size, but complementary in their economic structure. Moreover, the Six form through their territory a compact geographic and strategic unit. It must be added that despite, perhaps because of their great battles of the past-I am naturally speaking of France and Germany - they now find themselves inclined to support one another mutually rather than to oppose one another. Finally, aware of the potential of their material resources and their human values, all desire either aloud or in whispers that their unit constitute one day an element that might provide a balance to any power in the world.

Compared with the motives that led the Six to organize their unit, we understand for what reasons, why Britain-who is not continental, who remains, because of the Commonwealth and because she is an island, committed far beyond the seas, who is tied to the United States by all kinds of special agreements-did not merge into a Community with set dimensions and strict rules. While this Community was taking shape, Britain therefore first refused to participate in It and even took toward it a hostile attitude as if she saw in It an economic and political threat. Then she tried to negotiate in order to join the Community, but in such conditions that the latter would have been suffocated by this membership. The attempt having failed, the British Government then asserted that it no longer wanted to enter the Community and set about strengthening its ties with the Commonwealth and with other European countries grouped around it in a free-trade area. Yet, apparently now adopting a new state of mind, Britain declares she is ready to subscribe to the Rome Treaty, even though she is asking exceptional and prolonged delays and, as regards her, that basic changes be made in the Treaty's implementation. At the same time, she acknowledges that in order to arrive there, it will be necessary to surmount obstacles that the great perceptiveness and profound experience of her Prime Minister have qualified as formidable.

This is true, for instance, of the agricultural regulations. We know that they tend to have the countries of the Community nourish themselves on what they produce and to compensate, by what is called "financial levies," for all the advantages that each could have in importing less expensive produce from elsewhere. Now, Britain nourishes herself, to a great extent, on food-stuffs bought inexpensively throughout the world and, particularly, in the Commonwealth. If she submits to the rules of the Six, then her balance of payments will be crushed by "levies" and, on the other hand, she would then be forced to raise the price of her food to the price level adopted by the continental countries, consequently to increase the wages of her workers and, thereby, to sell her goods all the more at a higher price and with more difficulty. It is clear that she cannot do this. But, if she enters the Community without being really subjected to the agricultural system of the Six, this system will thereby collapse, completely upsetting the equilibrium of the Common Market and removing for France one of the main reasons she can have for participating in it.

Another basic difficulty arises from the fact that, among the Six, it is a rule that capital circulates freely to promote expansion, but that in Britain-if she were allowed to enter-it is forbidden for capital to leave so as to limit the balance-of-payments deficit, a deficit that, despite praiseworthy efforts and some recent progress, still remains threatening. How can this problem be solved? For it would be for the British an excessive risk to eliminate the sluice-gates which, in Britain, block the movement of money to the outside and, for the Europeans, it would be unthinkable to take into the organization a partner which, in this respect, would find itself isolated in such a costly regime,

Also, how can it not be seen that the very situation of the pound sterling prevents the Common Market from incorporating Britain. The very fact that the organization of the Six is entirely freeing their mutual trade necessarily implies that the currency of the member countries has a constant relative value and that, if it happened that one of them were disturbed, the Community would ensure its recovery. But this is possible only due to the well-established soundness of the mark, the lira, the florin, the Belgian franc and the French franc. Now, without despairing of seeing the pound hold its own, for a long time we would not be assured that it will succeed. . . . Monetary parity and solidarity are the essential conditions of the Common Market and assuredly could not be extended to our neighbors across the Channel, unless the pound appears, one day, in a new situation and such that its future value appears assured; unless it also frees itself of the character of reserve currency; unless, finally, the burden of Great Britain's deficitary balances within the sterling area disappear. When and how will this happen?

What is true, at this very moment, from the economic standpoint, would also be true, eventually, from the political standpoint. The idea, the hope which, from the beginning, led the Six continental countries to unite, tended without any doubt toward the formation of a unit which would be European in all respects, and, because of this would become capable not only of carrying its own weight in production and trade, but also of acting one day politically by itself and for itself toward anyone. Considering the special relations that tic the British to America, with the advantage and also the dependence that results for them; considering the existence of the Commonwealth and their preferential relations with it; considering the special commitment that they still have in various parts of the world and which, basically, distinguishes them from the continentals, we see that the policy of the latter, as soon as they have one, would undoubtedly concur, in certain cases, with the policy of the former. But we cannot see how both policies could merge, unless the British assumed again, particularly as regards defense, complete command of themselves, or else if the continentals renounced forever a European Europe.

[]

In truth, it really seems that the change in the situation of the British in relation to the Six, once we would be ready by common consent to proceed with it, might consist of a choice between three issues.

Either recognize that, as things stand at present, their entry into the Common Market, with all the exceptions that it would not fail to be accompanied by, with the irruption of entirely new facts, new both in nature and in quantity, that would necessarily result from this entry, with the participation of several other States that would certainly be its corollary, would amount to necessitating the building of an entirely new edifice, scrapping nearly all of that which has just been built. What, then, would we end tip with if not, perhaps, the creation of a free-trade area of Western Europe, pending that of the Atlantic area, which would deprive our continent of any real personality?

Or, establish, between the Community on the one band, and Britain and some States of the "little" free-trade area on the other, a system of association, such as the one provided for in the Treaty of Rome and which could, without creating an upheaval, multiply and facilitate the economic relations between the contracting parties.

Or else, lastly, before changing what exists, wait until a certain internal and external evolution, of which Great Britain seems already to be showing signs, is eventually completed, that is to say, until that great people which is endowed with tremendous ability and courage has itself accomplished first and for its part the necessary profound economic and political transformation so that it can join with the Six continental countries. I really believe that this is the desire of many people, who are anxious to see the emergence of a Europe corresponding to its natural dimensions and who have great admiration and true friendship for Britain. If, one day, she were to come to this point, how warmly France would welcome this historic conversion.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1967-degaulle-non-uk.html

smacl

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I'm not sure if the U.K. left it would make much difference at all since they are already operating outside so much EU policy.

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, a negative market reaction to brexit looks likely to devalue sterling further, which regardless of trade agreements will significantly affect export from the EU countries such as Ireland into the UK where margins are tight. This includes the likes of tourism and labour costs as well as goods. Of all the jobs carried out by EU nationals in the UK, a large proportion of them are highly skilled where the local UK workforce could simply not meet the demand. Massive infrastructural projects such as Crossrail (£14bn cost) would simply not be feasible without a huge skilled migrant workforce among contractors and subcontractors, Crossrail 2 looks like a furthe £27bn-£32bn, and I can think of a number of large Irish and European firms that will suffer if use of EU workers is impeded. It will be interesting to see how the UK handles all this in the case of a brexit.

What UKIP and its followers perhaps fail to realise is that very many of the jobs being taken off them by foreigners are jobs they simply don't have the local workforce to fill. If those jobs don't get done, the economy will suffer.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Of all the jobs carried out by EU nationals in the UK, a large proportion of them are highly skilled where the local UK workforce could simply not meet the demand. Massive infrastructural projects such as Crossrail (£14bn cost) would simply not be feasible without a huge skilled migrant workforce...

Of all the bizarre claims I have heard, the notion that British engineers are incapable of building their own railways is one of the funniest.
Somehow they managed to build railways not only throughout the UK, but also Africa and India. The cliff section of the Dart railway around Bray head was a project taken on by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, more or a less because other projects were too easy and he liked a challenge.

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] I missed the call for killing those who disagree, perhaps someone could provide me with the timestamp?

Last month, following the election of Sadiq Khan as mayor of London, Britain First announced that it was going to launch a campaign of direction action against muslims:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/24/britain-first-announce-they-plan-to-target-elected-muslim-officials-5902460/

Britain First wrote:

Britain First is about to launch a direct action campaign against Muslim elected officials, at all levels of politics. Figures such as Sadiq Khan (mayor of London), Sajid Javid (cabinet minister), MOHAMMED Altaf-Khan (mayor of Oxford), Hussain Akhtar (mayor of Blackburn), Shafique Shah (mayor of Birmingham) and so on.

This campaign was prompted by the election of Islamic extremist Sadiq Khan as mayor of London. Britain First leader Paul Golding said: ‘Britain First specialises in militant direct action and has tracked down and confronted numerous hate preachers and terrorists. Britain First now considers all Muslim elected officials as ‘occupiers’ and will start to oppose their strategy of entryism and take-over of our political system.

Our intelligence-led operations will focus on all aspects of their day-to-day lives and official functions, including where they live, work, pray and so on. Britain First has an official policy of banning Islam in the UK and will not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely. Stand by for a flurry of direct operations, similar to those we have launched numerous times against Islamists such as hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

Yesterday in court, Thomas Mair said that his name was "death to traitors, freedom for Britain"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/jo-cox-murder-suspect-thomas-mair-told-police-he-was-political-activist

The Guardian wrote:

A written summary of the prosecution’s case revealed the findings of a search of the defendant’s house. Newspaper articles relating to Cox and ideological material relating to extreme rightwing and white-supremacist organisations and individuals were recovered from the property.

From evidence so far, Mair appears to have been motivated primarily by hatred of muslims rather than intra-EU migration, though I'm sure he probably believed the two were the same.

In any case, it seems reasonable to me that Mair's extremist views were comforted by the mainstream anti-immigrant rhetoric which has been part of the strategy of the brexit crew.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Of all the bizarre claims I have heard, the notion that British engineers are incapable of building their own railways is one of the funniest.
Somehow they managed to build railways not only throughout the UK, but also Africa and India. The cliff section of the Dart railway around Bray head was a project taken on by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, more or a less because other projects were too easy and he liked a challenge.

And how many of those railways were actually built by Englishmen? When Britain was building railways in India and Africa it had an empire, where all the construction was carried out by local people. Kitchener's railway across the Sudan for example was built almost entirely by Egyptians, many of who died in the process. The major contractors on Crossrail include Dragados, Ferrovial Agroman, and Skanska. There were hundreds of Irish workers on the tunnelling section alone, and thousands once you get as far as various subcontractors. Running a small company myself where the bulk of my customers are in the UK infrastructure sector, they all employ a large number of non-nationals and they are all suffering from skills shortages and recruitment issues.

All major British railways have relied on foreign workforces to be built, from the very first to the most recent.

recedite

All British railways built outside Britain have relied on foreign unskilled labour for construction. Not the railways built within Britain.
The labour was not always local either BTW; there is a large ethnic population in East Africa who are descended from railway navvies imported from the Indian subcontinent.