European Union Referendum

[silkyman]

I've not caught up with the last day or so yet. I've seen that Gove has been given a bit of a kicking for talking a certain amount of bollocks, but not seen the bollocks he's said yet. But it's not being screamed from the front pages. That's all Maddie and Migrants, still.

I know how EU migration works. But it's not EU members coming in that are getting people worked up right now. We had a lot of that when Poland et al joined, but at the moment it's all about pointing at muslims and demanding we control our borders better. I'm talking about public perception. And you've explained it yourself. Unless they enter illegally, we CAN control our borders, at least to the people who are the current boogeymen.

And if Scotland decide that they don't like the way things are going and want another bite of the cherry, just telling Sturgeon to 'fuck off' isn't going to do much. What are we going to do if they want out? Send in tanks and force them to have a war of independence? (Asking politely for the nukes back, first..)

What worries me most about the leave lot, is that they have questionable motives. Boris wants to oust Cameron to be PM. IDS wants a piece of the action too. It worries me a little that rich, powerful people, who will be very insulated from even the worst case scenario that a scaremongering 'stay' campaigner could come up with, are leading this campaign purely to their own Machiavellian ends.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

And if Scotland decide that they don't like the way things are going and want another bite of the cherry, just telling Sturgeon to 'fuck off' isn't going to do much. What are we going to do if they want out? Send in tanks and force them to have a war of independence? (Asking politely for the nukes back, first..)

Sorry, I'll stop...

 

[.V.]

ECHR is nothing to do with the EU.

I find it depressing that you're willing to back down to the threat of being bullied. I mean, if you genuinely believe in the idea of a federal Europe then fine. I don't agree but it's an honest and straightforward disagreement. If you're simply scared of the EU's reaction to us resuming self-government...that's not a respectable argument. It's indicative of the embarrassing lack of national self-confidence we seem to be suffering from.

Genuine question - How would leaving the EU affect our relationship with the ECHR then?

I'm broadly positive about Europe, although I think the institution itself needs reform given the way it's expanded. I believe there is safety in numbers, and that we have more clout in the world, being in the EU, than being out of it. I would prefer us to lead in the EU, shaping it in a favourable way, like the Germans have done.

You don't think we should be concerned about a scorned EU, which needs to set an example? You think we'll be able to set terms to the EU, and be able to do so within 2 years?

I should add that I'm not a raving Europhile who is in favour of a United States of Europe. But I know what Britain looks like in the EU, and the Brexit camp have done nothing to show me that a Britain outside of the EU would benefit me, my family and friends or my fellow countrymen. For me, that is a big failing on their part.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The UK will never be able to control the EU because we're not in the Eurozone. I think most people believe in a reformed EU ideally, the problem is that it's not an institution that can be reformed. Treaty change would require agreement in every constituent state, which all have wildly different ideas about the direction we should be headed in, especially relative to the UK.

Which is why the EU will hammer us, to stop such a thing happening!

Ultimately the bankers will decide, as they always do, not the ideologues. In the bluster of the immediate aftermath there may be talk of punitive action, but the whole process takes two years, by which time the EU will probably have bigger problems on it's hands than how generous a deal with the UK will be.

 

[Alty]

I've not caught up with the last day or so yet. I've seen that Gove has been given a bit of a kicking for talking a certain amount of bollocks, but not seen the bollocks he's said yet. But it's not being screamed from the front pages. That's all Maddie and Migrants, still.

I know how EU migration works. But it's not EU members coming in that are getting people worked up right now. We had a lot of that when Poland et al joined, but at the moment it's all about pointing at muslims and demanding we control our borders better. I'm talking about public perception. And you've explained it yourself. Unless they enter illegally, we CAN control our borders, at least to the people who are the current boogeymen.

And if Scotland decide that they don't like the way things are going and want another bite of the cherry, just telling Sturgeon to 'fuck off' isn't going to do much. What are we going to do if they want out? Send in tanks and force them to have a war of independence? (Asking politely for the nukes back, first..)

What worries me most about the leave lot, is that they have questionable motives. Boris wants to oust Cameron to be PM. IDS wants a piece of the action too. It worries me a little that rich, powerful people, who will be very insulated from even the worst case scenario that a scaremongering 'stay' campaigner could come up with, are leading this campaign purely to their own Machiavellian ends.

So you talk about the fact that Leave only blather on about immigration and borders, then admit you haven't been keeping up with the debate.

You then label Gove's most recent intervention "bollocks", despite admitting you haven't actually heard or read it.

You then say "it's all about pointing at Muslims". What are you talking about? Why did Cameron make such a song and dance about reducing pull factors by restricting benefits to EU migrants? There are various aspects of the EU migration debate, but you can't just make a baseless assertion that nobody cares about Europeans coming here but there's widespread fear of Muslims. Let alone that those in favour of Leave think it's the key to fighting Islamic extremism.

If you really do want to go down that road, however, as soon as all those who've come to Europe get EU residency, they can come to the UK. So your (already flawed) argument falls down again.

The Scottish Government does not have the power to call a referendum unilaterally. Westminster has to grant it. Which it did, two years ago, on the mutual understanding it was a once in a generation thing. Sturgeon can whine all she wants. The UK Government is under no obligation to grant a referendum and it wouldn't. End of story.

"IDS wants a piece of the action too". What are you even talking about??

I don't believe you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I can only assume you dislike some of the people on the Leave side and have leapt into the other camp without thinking.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

aren't the eu responsible for checking a lot of the conservative party's more horrific policies? i got the impression that they'd stopped a few of their more odious ones going through but that's just a feeling

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Would it be one for the "pros" column if they have?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

little bit of column a, little bit of column b

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's a bit short-sighted to bow to the EU just because their temporary political leanings are convenient. If the continent were to veer hard right in the future then inside the union we'd be dragged along with them whether we liked it or not. The liberal arc to history is a myth. We've always lurched from hedonism to puritanism and back again with only brief periods of liberal enlightenment in between.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

The liberal arc to history is a myth. We've always lurched from hedonism to puritanism and back again with only brief periods of liberal enlightenment in between.

not really. if u look at say the status of homosexuals or women they enjoy close to absolute equality with heterosexuals and men respectively nowadays, and if u were to chart their progress towards equality on a line graph it'd be a consistently upwards trend

puritanism as u put it would be a slowing of forward progress, very rarely has there been a reversal. look at another liberal hot potato. capital punishment, more and more countries are banning it every year. a few centuries ago the world had some pretty ingenious and horrific means of killing people now it's only a handful of countries that do so

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

not really. if u look at say the status of homosexuals or women they enjoy close to absolute equality with heterosexuals and men respectively nowadays, and if u were to chart their progress towards equality on a line graph it'd be a consistently upwards trend

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were so indifferent towards homosexuality they didn't even have words for it. Women in Afghanistan had the right to vote before women in the USA did, now look at the place. Iran is another country where gender equality has lurched backwards. The only progress you can count on is technological, not social, and certainly not economic. I would argue that Europe is already regressing in terms of respect for free expression, and there's every reason to believe that the corporatists will sink their claws deeper into the EU also.

 

[Tilbury]

Aye, but what a small coterie of thoroughly dead blokes from the eighteenth century may have envisioned doesn't seem greatly relevant here. My point is about the present day US, its current President and prevailing attitudes towards supranationalism.

The most senior/powerful court in the US is the SCOTUS. Would Mr Obama favour the US signing up to a supranational court (like the ECtHR, for example), thereby allowing US citizens to challenge the decisions of the SCOTUS in an outside court, i.e. one largely populated by judges from neighbouring countries such as Argentina and Columbia? If not, why not?

And before anyone starts, I know the ECtHR isn't the EU. My point is a very general one about supranationalism. Mr Obama apparently thinks we should remain part of a project in which political, economic and judicial power will increasingly be transferred away from national bodies/institutions to supranational ones; therefore, it's reasonable to ask why he (like his predecessors) hasn't signed his country up for something vaguely similar. Why is it good for us but not for them?

These questions aren't rhetorical, BTW. They're not even intended as a knock at him. He might have persuasive answers to them. What's good for us isn't necessary what's good for the US. He might think that the US Constitution negates the need for something like the ECHR/ECtHR. All I'm saying saying is that the media should ask him about this stuff instead of throwing him softballs.

Again you've missed our point that the us of a can be considered a collection of states. The supreme court has power over the 50 states, and courts of the 50 states. If Obama came out and said he wanted to abolish the federal government and everything it entails then maybe you'd have a point.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The national identity of Americans is not based on the state they're from though, their national is the USA, so how does that contradict what Boris said?

 

[mente captus]

The national identity of Americans is not based on the state they're from though, their national is the USA, so how does that contradict what Boris said?

a short sidenote:

during the last wc germany met the states at the group stage. at this time my daughter was 20 months old. we watched together the match.
a few days later she was running through our flat and chanted 'U-S-A, U-S-A' ( in perfect english) my reaction so...what the fuck? i realised it only weeks later after she had done it over and over again that this came from the match we were watching together.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i ran around the bar i was in at the time wearing an american flag as a cape making eagle noises during the american game #communityofnations #class #nicetouch

 

[silkyman]

So you talk about the fact that Leave only blather on about immigration and borders, then admit you haven't been keeping up with the debate.

You then label Gove's most recent intervention "bollocks", despite admitting you haven't actually heard or read it.

You then say "it's all about pointing at Muslims". What are you talking about? Why did Cameron make such a song and dance about reducing pull factors by restricting benefits to EU migrants? There are various aspects of the EU migration debate, but you can't just make a baseless assertion that nobody cares about Europeans coming here but there's widespread fear of Muslims. Let alone that those in favour of Leave think it's the key to fighting Islamic extremism.

If you really do want to go down that road, however, as soon as all those who've come to Europe get EU residency, they can come to the UK. So your (already flawed) argument falls down again.

The Scottish Government does not have the power to call a referendum unilaterally. Westminster has to grant it. Which it did, two years ago, on the mutual understanding it was a once in a generation thing. Sturgeon can whine all she wants. The UK Government is under no obligation to grant a referendum and it wouldn't. End of story.

"IDS wants a piece of the action too". What are you even talking about??

I don't believe you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I can only assume you dislike some of the people on the Leave side and have leapt into the other camp without thinking.

I'm talking about the broader perception of the public driven by the media. Whatever it was that Gove said, and whatever rebuttals he had, hasn't made any mark. Because the press know that most rank and file voters don't give a shit. Today's Telegraph front page headline is 'Tighten Borders Against Terror'.

You really think that IDS resigned because he was appalled by the treatment of vulnerable members of society? After overseeing it with glee, he suddenly resigns and scurries over to Boris. All they care about is getting into the top jobs.

 

[silkyman]

The national identity of Americans is not based on the state they're from though, their national is the USA, so how does that contradict what Boris said?

Not now, but things change. If you're talking about national identity, you're talking over generations. Americans didn't all consider themselves the same during the Civil War, for example.

Not that I'm backing the idea of a federal superstate of Europe, if it did happen, it would only be a generation or two before people thought of them selves as 'Europeans' rather than 'English'.

Nations in Europe have changed over 100 years.

 

[johnnytodd]

Lest not forget being in the European Union does not make us safer.

 

[johnnytodd]

Whilst contemplating your vote Spanish fishermen are catching fish in our waters........legally.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

we don't have all that much evidence either way, our security services are doing a pretty good job here. like 2 attacks in a decade?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Not now, but things change. If you're talking about national identity, you're talking over generations. Americans didn't all consider themselves the same during the Civil War, for example.

Not that I'm backing the idea of a federal superstate of Europe, if it did happen, it would only be a generation or two before people thought of them selves as 'Europeans' rather than 'English'.

Nations in Europe have changed over 100 years.

Nobody disputes this I don't think. The original point was meant to refute the point Boris had made though. No point saying "not now", when now is exactly when he was talking about.

 

[Veggie Legs]

Genuine question - How would leaving the EU affect our relationship with the ECHR then?

It wouldn't. The ECHR is administered (dunno if that's quite the right word) by the Council of Europe which is a completely separate organisation to the EU. I assume we'd still be a part of the Council of Europe so we'd still be signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

If you want to know who's in what organisation in Europe (I was), this is my favourite diagram from Wikipedia, which might help.

 

[Destruction]

I enjoy watching us play in the Euros just as much as the World Cup so I'm voting in.

 

[silkyman]

Here's a worryingly high profile group not at all equating migration with Muslims and worrying about all those non Europeans 'flooding' into the country.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5717cedde4b0f9085c2ccc0b

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

wow stay ins have taken a huge lead what is going ON

 

[Alty]

wow stay ins have taken a huge lead what is going ON

COWARDICE.

 

[Arkan]

What does everybody think of Obama getting involved?

https://www.rt.com/uk/340469-obama-visit-brexit-eu/

If anyone was going to persuade me to vote to stay it wouldn't be him.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

I think Obama should keep his trap shut and keep his nose out. He's an outgoing leader for a start, and has nothing to do with the running of this country for a second. I like our relationship with the Americans, however they shouldn't be trying to influence a decision either way, and I am a little fed up of us being seen as essentially the 51st state.

 

[Womble98]

As Private Eye pointed out, somewhat ironic of Liam Fox saying that Obama shouldn't get involved in other countries politics when he wrote a series of articles backing Mitt Romney in the last election in the US.

 

[.V.]

COWARDICE.

Or perhaps team Brexit have failed to put forward a credible vision of what a Britain outside of the EU will look like.