European Union Referendum

[smat]

I agree (and indeed made the same point last week), but his "back of the line" remark wasn't merely opinion; it was a statement that clashed horribly with the insincere, perfunctory guff he spouted in the same speech about the "special relationship", and one which could certainly be construed as a threat. You cool with that?

He did say "what I think the United States is going to do", and he's a lame duck president anyway, so he has limited relevance to this debate as it is. As you know, I don't have strong feelings either side of this argument, and I don't see his 'intervention' as anything remarkable really.

On the other hand, Boris's "half-Kenyan" comments were actually deranged. He wrote it with the caveat that "some said..." (ie not him) but still pretty mad to make it a part of his argument.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

if boris becomes leader of this country on the back of being a bit kooky and different then we owe america such an apology

 

[mowgli]

In Obama's speech he used the word queue, Americans don't use that word they say line so it's obviously written by Downing Street and he agreed to read it out, just how stupid does Cameron think voters are because most of will not fall for any more lies.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

...or maybe he's trying to appeal to brits by using our lingo?

 

[mowgli]

...or maybe he's trying to appeal to brits by using our lingo?

No chance he doesn't have a clue that's why he will go down in history as one of the most useless US Presidents who fucked up everything he touched.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

nah obama's an ok dude, he got fucked over by the american political system which prevented him doing most of the things he set out to do, but his heart was in the right place. better than reagan and both bushs at least

the recent beeb obama documentary is really good watching if you're interested btw. it's on iplayer still i think

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

It was a soapy tit wank. If the BBC turned out an equivalent hagiography about a contemporary British politician (as opposed to a contemporary royal or Churchill, who both get one a month) we'd all have an aneurysm from laughing so hard.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

well i liked it

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

It was interesting. But to fill 3 hours with genuflection and not find the time to ask, for example, "so, about that extrajudicial drone war thing..." or "remember that time you authorised a massive and possibly unconstitutional expansion of domestic surveillance capabilities..." was ever so slightly deferent, wonnit.

 

[mnb089mnb]

No chance he doesn't have a clue that's why he will go down in history as one of the most useless US Presidents who fucked up everything he touched.

Read a piece in the Washington Post today saying that Obama had used the word "queue" in speeches before. Has also used British English on other occasions.

Not overly surprising considering his stepmother lives round the corner from me in Bracknell.

Not sure this "queue" thing is proof of anything.

 

[blade1889]

Let me get this straight, Obama said queue in one of his speeches?

That's it, I'm done, voting out for sure now. Bet he says football when he's in England instead of Soccer. Phony American, cant trust a word he says.

 

[silkyman]

Queuegate

 

[Captain Scumbag]

He did say "what I think the United States is going to do", and he's a lame duck president anyway, so he has limited relevance to this debate as it is. As you know, I don't have strong feelings either side of this argument, and I don't see his 'intervention' as anything remarkable really. On the other hand, Boris's "half-Kenyan" comments were actually deranged. He wrote it with the caveat that "some said..." (ie not him) but still pretty mad to make it a part of his argument.

Hmm…

FWIW, I agree about Boris. The man has proven himself a complete liability. For an informed, funnier and non-race-baity rejoinder to Obama's speech, see here.

A slightly off topic question, but how easy is it to call a referendum? My thinking is that if we leave and things go badly wrong it would be difficult for us to negotiate our way back into Europe. Whereas if we remain and things get worse than they are now, surely we could just decide to leave rather easily? (Assuming that was the national consensus of course).

You're basically right in assuming that re-joining would be difficult. I'm sure they'd have us back eventually, but we'd enter the necessary negotiations from a position of abject weakness as we'd effectively be crawling back to them with our tail between our legs. You can't expect much when bargaining from that position. At present, we enjoy certain opt-outs. There is no reason to think they'd be handed back.

Also, we don't know how the EU will change in our absence. We know the general direction it will head in – we can safely assume it won't suddenly ditch its federalist ambitions – but it's impossible to know how far down that road it will have travelled by the time we arrive at our purely hypothetical scenario of begging them to be let back in. Perhaps joining the single currency and being part of the Schengen area will be pre-conditions of membership. Actually, the latter almost certainly would be.

It's all conjecture, but I think it's reasonable to assume that we couldn't just re-join and pick up where we left off. Your fears regarding this are all sensible enough. The reason why similar fears haven't weakened my resolve to vote Leave is threefold: (1) I don't think leaving would prove an economic disaster; (2) I think self-government by democratic consent is more important than economic prosperity, anyway; and (3) I doubt there will be another referendum in my lifetime, regardless of how shitty things become. I can expand on all of this if necessary, and probably will closer to the referendum.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Pyeman: I just realised I didn't answer your question. Calling a referendum is quite easy in practice. A simple act of parliament will suffice. The tricky part is getting a government who (a) have a working majority, and (b) the determination to make it happen.

 

[Pyeman]

You're basically right in assuming that re-joining would be difficult. I'm sure they'd have us back eventually, but we'd enter the necessary negotiations from a position of abject weakness as we'd effectively be crawling back to them with our tail between our legs. You can't expect much when bargaining from that position. At present, we enjoy certain opt-outs. There is no reason to think they'd be handed back.

Also, we don't know how the EU will change in our absence. We know the general direction it will head in – we can safely assume it won't suddenly ditch its federalist ambitions – but it's impossible to know how far down that road it will have travelled by the time we arrive at our purely hypothetical scenario of begging them to be let back in. Perhaps joining the single currency and being part of the Schengen area will be pre-conditions of membership. Actually, the latter almost certainly would be.

It's all conjecture, but I think it's reasonable to assume that we couldn't just re-join and pick up where we left off. Your fears regarding this are all sensible enough. The reason why similar fears haven't weakened my resolve to vote Leave is threefold: (1) I don't think leaving would prove an economic disaster; (2) I think self-government by democratic consent is more important than economic prosperity, anyway; and (3) I doubt there will be another referendum in my lifetime, regardless of how shitty things become. I can expand on all of this if necessary, and probably will closer to the referendum.

Personally I don't know enough about economics to really understand the consequences of either outcome, and I certainly don't believe the information coming from either campaign.

I do have some concerns in regards to the point on democracy, and also how greater European integration would affect our sovereignty. But I'm not concerned enough at present to take a leap into the unknown.

I think it's worth remembering the deal we recently negotiated with the EU. I know it split opinion in terms of how successful Cameron was in negotiating, but we won't truly know how good a deal it is unless we stick around for a while.

 

[silkyman]

Reports at the time were that the deal was pretty poor. But as ever, you never know if that's just the press spinning it to fit their agenda.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Personally I don't know enough about economics to really understand the consequences of either outcome, and I certainly don't believe the information coming from either campaign.

In that case, should economic concerns even be factored into your decision? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

I do have some concerns in regards to the point on democracy, and also how greater European integration would affect our sovereignty. But I'm not concerned enough at present to take a leap into the unknown.

I've heard this argument countless times over the years, usually from undecided voters who are leaning towards Remain. It's not an entirely unreasonable position, but it does beg various questions. What concerns do you have, exactly? If the current situation is acceptable, what would you consider unacceptable? Do you think the various unacceptable scenarios you have in mind unlikely to materialise. If so, why?

I think it's worth remembering the deal we recently negotiated with the EU. I know it split opinion in terms of how successful Cameron was in negotiating, but we won't truly know how good a deal it is unless we stick around for a while.

I think it's fair – plainly factual, even – to say Mr Cameron fell short of his stated intentions. He was always going to (in a proper negotiation you rarely, if ever, get everything you want), so there's certainly scope for debate about how well he did in the circumstances.

IMO his demands were far too modest, and certain parts of the agreement which Cameron has tried to sell as unequivocal 'wins' actually invite more questions than they answer. There is also a wretchedly tedious but important debate ongoing about how legally binding the agreement is (see here for a non-conclusive summary in The Grauniad).

A lot could be written on this subject, but your basic assertion that we'll have to wait and see is essentially correct. None of this will help you reach a decision, but it hopefully lends some credence to my argument that staying in entails a lot of uncertainty too.

P.S. – I tried, and miserably failed, to link to an opinion piece about Obama in my previous post. Try this link instead.

 

[Pyeman]

In that case, should economic concerns even be factored into your decision? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

I've heard this argument countless times over the years, usually from undecided voters who are leaning towards Remain. It's not an entirely unreasonable position, but it does beg various questions. What concerns do you have, exactly? If the current situation is acceptable, what would you consider unacceptable? Do you think the various unacceptable scenarios you have in mind unlikely to materialise. If so, why?

I think it's fair – plainly factual, even – to say Mr Cameron fell short of his stated intentions. He was always going to (in a proper negotiation you rarely, if ever, get everything you want), so there's certainly scope for debate about how well he did in the circumstances.

IMO his demands were far too modest, and certain parts of the agreement which Cameron has tried to sell as unequivocal 'wins' actually invite more questions than they answer. There is also a wretchedly tedious but important debate ongoing about how legally binding the agreement is (see here for a non-conclusive summary in The Grauniad).

A lot could be written on this subject, but your basic assertion that we'll have to wait and see is essentially correct. None of this will help you reach a decision, but it hopefully lends some credence to my argument that staying in entails a lot of uncertainty too.

P.S. – I tried, and miserably failed, to link to an opinion piece about Obama in my previous post. Try this link instead.

I think you've touched upon a very good point. At the minute, there aren't very many issues related to the EU that directly affect my life. Therefore is it any wonder that I naturally lean towards remain? I try not to think like this, but given the complex nature of both arguments, it's quite easy for me to side with the devil I already know.

I agree that considering something in a decision making process that I know very little about (in this case economics) is somewhat pointless, even counter productive. But on the other hand it's such a big issue that I can't totally ignore it either. I suppose I should go out and find he information for myself. I just don't know where to find a trustworthy source.

 

[silkyman]

Which is a huge problem. There's no genuinely independent sources.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Then just choose the sort of country you want the UK to be. The sort that forges it's own path in the world, or the sort that bows it's head for the promise of economic security.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Interesting piece commenting on Sweden's perpective and discusses recent polls taken there on the EU. One of the most liberal nations on the planet is far from pro EU and would seemingly also consider leaving.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/swedes-tell-britain-if-you-leave-the-eu-well-follow/

And at the other end of the political spectrum, in Austria a far right anti immigration anti Schengen party has the topped the first round of voting in their presidential election. Although that's just ahead of a pro immigration green party, with both traditional centrist parties cast aside.

Then in Germany, we have Stuttgart based car manufacturer Daimler complaining that's going to be forced to move jobs abroad & outside the EU because of employment laws. And at the weekend a significant demonstration of 35,000 people reportedly in Hanover against the EU / US trade deal TTIP.

 

[silkyman]

Then just choose the sort of country you want the UK to be. The sort that forges it's own path in the world, or the sort that bows it's head for the promise of economic security.

All well and good unless the 'forging ahead' turns out to be a spectacular failure and ten years from now we're all utterly fucked.

 

[Tilbury]

I haven't missed your point; I just consider it a poor rejoinder to the argument Boris was making about the Americans and sovereignty (which is how you presented your point originally).

I see no reason to equivocate: the US is a collection of states. Collectively, however, those states form a nation. And although various powers (political, economic, judicial) are devolved to the individual states, there are various federal/national bodies that overarch that state structure. Through those, power is exercised on a national basis.

Supranationalism is about taking powers from those national bodies and institutions and giving them to some kind of transnational alternative. Boris did not use the word supranational (I doubt it would have made a jot of difference if he had, BTW), but that's almost certainly what he had in mind when he made his remarks.

The US being a federal republic tells us nothing about its attitude toward supranationalism. Its set-up demostrates enthusiasm for devolving powers internally, i.e. to the local states, which closes the geographic distance (and arguably the socio-cultural distance) between the people making the decisions and those who will be affected by them.

Supranationalism is the opposite. From the national level, powers are transferred externally to some kind of transnational body. The distance between those making the decisions and those affected by them is widened, which is why supranationalism raises various concerns about accountability, democratic deficits, etc.

Federal states are born when a collection of autonomous regions or states come together and form a kind of superstate, like the US. It is not like the devolved power we have here, where the central unitary government has allowed regions autonomy. That s quite a key difference I think. I agree of course the US as a collect would never share the kind of sovereignty that we do in Europe, and nor does it need to.

 

[Grapesy]

the democracy stuff is causing me most trouble. like unity, dislike lack of accountability. answer's a pickle.

 

[silkyman]

Federal states are born when a collection of autonomous regions or states come together and form a kind of superstate, like the US. It is not like the devolved power we have here, where the central unitary government has allowed regions autonomy. That s quite a key difference I think. I agree of course the US as a collect would never share the kind of sovereignty that we do in Europe, and nor does it need to.

At this stage I think there's a slight danger that we're overthinking what was essentially a cheap soundbite.

 

[Tilbury]

At this stage I think there's a slight danger that we're overthinking what was essentially a cheap soundbite.

Haha of course, this is all pretty irrelevant to the discussion, as regardless Obama has the right to voice his opinion.
Just like Marine Le Pen. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-french-front-national-uk-visit-a6992301.html

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

All well and good unless the 'forging ahead' turns out to be a spectacular failure and ten years from now we're all utterly fucked.

Then we'd get what we deserve for our failures, but why would you bet on us failing?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Haha of course, this is all pretty irrelevant to the discussion, as regardless Obama has the right to voice his opinion.
Just like Marine Le Pen. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-french-front-national-uk-visit-a6992301.html

Good grief. Is she thick? This can only hurt the Leave campaign.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Remember when the Guardian organised that campaign encouraging us limeys to write to people in Ohio telling them not to vote for Bush, and it massively backfired in completely unforeseeable fashion. The narcissism of the righteous is a powerful thing, innit.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

oh yeah that was funny haha