European Union Referendum

[Martino Knockavelli]

I guess the economic argument is that.

If house prices fell, then people would have less disposable income. If the price of my house hadn't risen I wouldn't have paid a builder to build an extension on my house. He wouldn't have had that job to do. I guess it'd also hit car purchases and all sorts of things.

Economics is weird, not always as simple as it seems. That's why this whole EU thing is so complex. There's no easy answer.

"Well it's complicated!" is a needlessly apologetic and obfuscatory logic. Treating the inflating value of a basic requirement of tolerable human existence (decent shelter with some modicum of medium term security attached) as _the_ barometer of a healthy economy is a symptom of a societal psychopathy.

Not least because--even if one wants to insist on an amoral just-the-£££ argument-- periodically the oven door is opened on that souffle and we are all reminded once again that rising property prices mean relatively little as a sustainable indicator of economic growth and productivity.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Just making the point that a big reduction in housing prices isn't necessarily a universally brilliant thing for those who currently don't own a home or rent for a reasonable price.

Value of property does need to fall though, need to build loads more homes preferably by punishing those who own more than one home.

 

[Tilbury]

As above, lower house prices would lead to lower rent.

Not neccessarily just lower rent prices, a stabilzed plan so they cannot be increased by ridiculous amounts. My friend has just had his rent upped by 33% for the simple fact that it's in a relatively central london location. New York has a well publicised rent control system which doesn't just control price, it sets out regulation for what services and maintainance the landlord must provide. Considering the unscrupulous nature of some we have here too, I think this is a must.

 

[silkyman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

This is quite useful. Mainly for picking up on the outright lies coming from both sides (but more, it feels, from Brexit)

 

[silkyman]

http://m.thepaperboy.com/uk/daily-mail/front-pages-today.cfm?frontpage=46062

In other news, here's the Mail not in any way perpetuating the myth that migrants = 'brown people on boats who probably want to kill you'

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Just gonna leave this here...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...n-ADMITS-Brussels-BLOCKED-bid-rescue-UK-steel

The Prime Minister's shocking comments came as new doubts emerged over whether the company being touted as a possible saviour for Britain's steel plants will actually make a bid.

The Liberty Group, which had suggested it could save all 15,000 jobs if it buys the beleaguered Tata's steelworks, has warned the process could take months and no decision yet has been made to definitely make a bid.

It comes as Business Secretary Sajid Javid, who has been strongly criticised for missing crucial meetings at the start of the crisis so he could go on holiday, has said he will visit the Port Talbot steelworks in Wales.

But with Brexit campaigners pointing out that EU rules are preventing the government from putting forward a rescue package for the steel industry, Mr Cameron also admitted that he was stopped from putting tariffs on cheap Chinese steel being dumped in Europe.


Speaking at a question and answer session on the EU referendum in Exeter, the Prime Minister was challenged over claims that his government had called for the steel tariffs with China to be lifted.

However, he said: “We actually voted for tariffs against Chinese steel.

“The only issue where we have been less keen was that there was an attempt in Europe to not only change tariffs for steel but have a whole regime of tariffs on all sorts of other things as well as steel.

“Our vision of Europe is one where we try to support free trade rather than a very protectionist Europe."

The comment was seized on by Brexit campaigners as evidence of the problems the UK has in making trade deals which suit Britain while it is tethered to the EU and cannot act alone in the country's interest instead being forced to find compromises with 28 other nations.


Grassroots Out spokesman Tom Pursglove said:"The fact is, we can't provide proper protection for our steel industry as a member of the European Union. We do not control our own trade policy.

"The consequence of this is that we simply aren't allowed to impose significant duties on 'dumped' Chinese steel, unlike the U.S. Government, which has slapped on duties of 266%.

"I strongly believe in free markets, but free markets require an even playing field. We produce the best steel in the world, but our EU membership is harming the industry, whilst European Union Commission delays have stopped our Government providing the right help at the right time. It's time to leave."

A Ukip spokesman added: “As always Brussels is all about one size fits all. Rapid smart action is something Brussels cannot do, only by leaving the EU can we act in the interests of our own workers."

Speaking on the prospects of a rescue package for the Tata steelworks in Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, Sanjeev Gupta, the head of Liberty House, the only company to publicly express an interest in the plants, said the process would take months.

Mr Gupta said any buyer would have to "turn around" Tata's loss-making business and would not want to take on the huge pension liabilities.

Tata would probably want to make progress on any sale within weeks, but Mr Gupta said he believed the process would take months.


"We are interested and we now need to work out a business plan."

Earlier this week, Mr Javid held a two-hour meeting with Tata officials in Mumbai, just over a week after the company made the shock decision to sell its loss-making UK assets.

He said Tata will allow a "reasonable amount of time" for the process to be completed.

The minister stressed that the Government wanted to work with any prospective buyer, saying "a number" of people had already started coming forward.

"I would like to see many more come forward when the formal process begins," he said.

Mr Javid met Tata chairman Cyrus Mistry and other company officials to discuss the planned sale.

He said afterwards that he understood there would be some "issues" to deal with, such as power, which the Government "might be able to help further with".

Yup, EU is fantastic for business and British jobs. The French are also pushing for a referendum, as are the Germans, so hopefully if we fail to begin the collapse of this ridiculous entity, our French or German friends can bring about its destruction.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Brussels did block the ability to raise tarrifs on Chinese steel.

Mainly because the UK didn't want tarrifs imposed and blocked it via the EU.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The government can't properly be held to account so long as they can use the EU as a scapegoat. They do the same thing when they claim they can't curb immigration, even though half of it doesn't even come from within the EU.

 

[Alty]

Brussels did block the ability to raise tarrifs on Chinese steel.

Mainly because the UK didn't want tarrifs imposed and blocked it via the EU.

Did you read the comments above? The UK did vote for tariffs on Chinese steel imports specifically to counter the practice of large-scale steel dumping. What the UK didn't want was a wide ranging tariffs regime.

Since we're on the issue of tariffs and protectionism...anyone in favour of Remain willing to offer a defence of the EU's treatment of exporters in the developing world?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Why you dont have? We have FTAs with japan, australia, india ( since 1955) and many more. You cant blame the EU for mistakes your own government has done.

We can in this instance because trade policy is an area of "exclusive competence" for the EU. In plain English, the EU (not individual EU member countries) is responsible for trade agreements with countries outside the EU. As a result, Britain cannot negotiate and agree an FTA with a non-EU country on a bilateral basis. The agreement has to be between the non-EU country and the EU. Germany should be bound by the same ties, so I'd appreciate a link to some evidence corroborating your claim. I had a look and found nothing, though I may have looked in the wrong places.

As a general point, there are different types of deals. Those I have in mind cover things like tariffs and the economic regulation governing trade. Those are handled by the EU, as one would expect since the EU (understood economically) is essentially a customs union. There are broader types of deals that EU member countries can agree on a bilateral basis. These are essentially commercial agreements, e.g. Country A agreeing to buy Country B's products. The British and Indian governments agreed some deals of that kind last year, so it may be something similar that you have in mind vis-à-vis Germany.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

A vague sense of foreboding if we leave the EU and a great deal of risk if we stay in. Not sure that's how most see it.

I didn't suggest they do. The "great deal of risk if stay in" part was personal opinion and clearly expressed as such. I'm perfectly aware, from hours of debate and canvassing, that the majority don't share in this view.

I think "vague sense of foreboding" is fair since many of the undecided-but-leaning-Remain folk I speak to seem to fear a post-Brexit fall-out but aren't entirely sure why. Those people aren't just parroting the government's predictions of economic Armageddon. It's more like a bad hunch – an unfocused sense of fearful apprehension that Brexit could be bad for the economy. That's isn't to demean it. Bad hunches are powerful things and hard to argue people out of (I know!). The salient point is that the concern isn't based on a firm foundation of economic knowledge or theory.

You're a very good cheerleader for anti-democratic British institutions, I guess it's just the European ones that annoy you. I've got little time for both.

You demean yourself by posting such drivel. The post you've quoted expresses my preference for PR (I even named my preferred type) and my wish to abolish the HoL. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the status quo, is it? If you think I'm a very good champion of undemocratic British institutions, you really haven't read widely enough. If you want some recommendations, just ask.

If nothing else, please pick up and work through a primer on informal logic, since then you might realise that being more concerned about X than Y does not make one unconcerned about Y (or a champion of Y). One can dislike the undemocratic nature of the HoL and the European Commission but have sound, non-xenophobic reasons for being more concerned about the latter. It doesn't require great acrobatics of thought.

Ultimately I'm not happy with IN, or OUT.

Oh well. Sucks to be you, I guess.

I'd want a vote of IN - But don't be a dick and start further integration without letting us vote and OUT - But don't be a dick and kick a load of foreign nurses and doctors out of the country and kill our NHS.

Were you sloshed when you wrote this?

 

[blade1889]

I'm probably one of those leaning towards remain purely for the bad hunch...what foundation of economic knowledge or theory could persuade me otherwise? Sorry if already covered, please just point me to the post if it has. (wasn't hugely interested before as I wasn't going to be around to vote and didn't set a proxy vote up but now am....)

My basic knowledge would be that uncertain outcomes (which voting leave would be more so than 'what we know' in remain even if you can argue both have uncertain outcomes in the long run its easy to see that the markets would see leave as more uncertain) tend to lead to cautious markets taking out their money and an economic slump.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Just making the point that a big reduction in housing prices isn't necessarily a universally brilliant thing for those who currently don't own a home or rent for a reasonable price.

Value of property does need to fall though, need to build loads more homes preferably by punishing those who own more than one home.

Need to build loads more homes? How about filling the 200,000+ current vacant properties first. Converting other derelict buildings into flats or homes would probably double that figure, without the need to even build houses, that apparently this housing shortage is crying out for. Currently the average person per household is 2.3, so that would re-house the best part of 1m people.

Punishing people who own more than one home, depends who you go for. The small time landlords who have one or two extra properties to top up their pension when they retire or the multi million landlords and big companies who can simply buy a property out right without the need for a mortgage. Well the current Tory government have passed new laws to try and wipe out small time landlords out of the market and allow the multi millionaires and big companies to dominate the market. The rise in stamp duty and the fact that rental income is now counted in the taxable income without the mortgage from second homes being deducted, will only lead to a massive increase in rental prices. Meaning people stuck in the rental system and trying to save up to buy their own homes even harder. If you register a purchase in the name of a private company I believe, then you bypass this new law. Ridiculous.

Even with any potential reductions in house prices, a weaker pound on leaving the EU will obviously hit the banks, so getting a first time mortgage will be even harder. I fear that without the EU being able to block some ridiculous policies from the Government then they could completely destroy the housing market and give full control to the mega rich big companies who can turn the screw as everyone needs to live in properties, so they can charge what they like and get away with it.

Leaving the EU and housing in the UK is sorted is some what of a pipe dream.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Somehow I think forcing the owners of empty homes to hand them over would hit the housing industry harder than an elected government simply controlling over it's own legislature.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it's a joke having a housing crisis when we have thousands of properties lying empty

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think many would agree that it's the ethical thing to do, but that doesn't mean it'll magically yield positive results.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Somehow I think forcing the owners of empty homes to hand them over would hit the housing industry harder than an elected government simply controlling over it's own legislature.

No mention of forcing owners or empty homes to hand them over. With the supposed housing demand, no one who has had a long term vacant property would turn down the opportunity to rent it out or sell it for the right amount. So many houses are empty and the people that own them just cannot seem to sell or rent them out despite not asking for crazy amounts of cash.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

No mention of forcing owners or empty homes to hand them over. With the supposed housing demand, no one who has had a long term vacant property would turn down the opportunity to rent it out or sell it for the right amount. So many houses are empty and the people that own them just cannot seem to sell or rent them out despite not asking for crazy amounts of cash.

There are loads of reasons why people leave homes empty. Some leave the country for long periods, some just have second homes they don't live in regularly, some buy homes as assets to bank etc.

 

[Viv Aldi]

I've spent some time campaigning with vote leave in Sheffield.
A vote to leave the EU is a vote for democracy and a brighter, global future. Urge any leavers on here to do there all to ensure any friends and family who are undecided voters to register and vote leave on the 23rd.
Looking at the bookies who 'rarely get it wrong' you'd have to say leaving the EU looks unlikely, but the bookies and polls don't always get it right. The campaign of fear looks like it is being somewhat succesful for remain, but I don't think the British public are as stupid as some of the political elite assume

 

[Viv Aldi]

I'm probably one of those leaning towards remain purely for the bad hunch...what foundation of economic knowledge or theory could persuade me otherwise? Sorry if already covered, please just point me to the post if it has. (wasn't hugely interested before as I wasn't going to be around to vote and didn't set a proxy vote up but now am....)

My basic knowledge would be that uncertain outcomes (which voting leave would be more so than 'what we know' in remain even if you can argue both have uncertain outcomes in the long run its easy to see that the markets would see leave as more uncertain) tend to lead to cautious markets taking out their money and an economic slump.

The EU hinders trade for us outside of the Union itself. Indeed, there is EU legislation that makes it (through quotas and tariffs) deliberatley difficult to trade with nations outside of the EU. It helps businesses who would otherwise go bust remain competitive as otherwise Japan would dominate the creative technology industry for example.
I won't even go into the adverse effects on small and medium sized business the EU has. It's a constantly used argument but the legislation has completely destroyed the British fishing industry for example.

 

[silkyman]

I've spent some time campaigning with vote leave in Sheffield.
A vote to leave the EU is a vote for democracy and a brighter, global future. Urge any leavers on here to do there all to ensure any friends and family who are undecided voters to register and vote leave on the 23rd.
Looking at the bookies who 'rarely get it wrong' you'd have to say leaving the EU looks unlikely, but the bookies and polls don't always get it right. The campaign of fear looks like it is being somewhat succesful for remain, but I don't think the British public are as stupid as some of the political elite assume

Brighter global future how?

And I don't think the leave campaign can accuse anyone of a campaign of fear.

How about both sides actually use facts instead of just talking bollocks and making accusations. I see today that the Leave lot have been warned again to stop using the £350m lie which is actually painted onto the side of their bus.

It was never going to be a fair fight and I worry that the print media bias towards leave (prompted by their owners) will cause people to vote for something that is not the right choice.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

And I don't think the leave campaign can accuse anyone of a campaign of fear.

The other day Cameron was trying imply that Brexit could lead to war in continental Europe...

 

[Aber gas]

It was never going to be a fair fight and I worry that the print media bias towards leave (prompted by their owners) will cause people to vote for something that is not the right choice.

That's just not true. With a few exceptions the media bias has been massively in favour of remain. I suppose that's to be expected but to suddenly present the remain campaign as plucky underdogs is laughable.

 

[Abertawe]

That's just not true. With a few exceptions the media bias has been massively in favour of remain. I suppose that's to be expected but to suddenly present the remain campaign as plucky underdogs is laughable.

Innit. Just about every media outlet going has been full to the rim with doom & gloom about the repercussions of a potential leave. The agenda of project fear has been extremely evident, I'm shocked Silk can even remotely suggest there has been bias to the leave side over remain, so much so I'm not sure if he's trolling or not.

His suggestion about sides using facts is obviously sensible but both sides have presented 'facts' that completely contradict one another. There are no clear cut facts, the majority of issues come down to opinion and even those who are supposed experts in their field haven't got a scooby doo about what would or wouldn't happen.

This whole thing is a complete & utter waste of fucking time. Referendums are bollox, the ultimate tool for the delusion of democracy. The turn out percentage will be drivel, those that do turn out won't have a fucking clue what they're voting on, remain will win and everyone will hail democracy. We're staying in because transnational corporations have decided that's how it's gotta be not because it's the will of the people. The people have no will. If they did we wouldn't have these set of fucks controlling the world.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

The other day Cameron was trying imply that Brexit could lead to war in continental Europe...

I thought his point was more around the fact the leave side have been doing it so it's a bit rich to complain about the other side being dirty rather than him suggesting they were squeaky clean.

Anyhoo, not long to go now. Thankfully.

 

[mowgli]

The other day Cameron was trying imply that Brexit could lead to war in continental Europe...

It's being members of NATO that has kept the peace in Europe not being a member of The EU.

 

[Max]

Innit. Just about every media outlet going has been full to the rim with doom & gloom about the repercussions of a potential leave. The agenda of project fear has been extremely evident, I'm shocked Silk can even remotely suggest there has been bias to the leave side over remain, so much so I'm not sure if he's trolling or not.

His suggestion about sides using facts is obviously sensible but both sides have presented 'facts' that completely contradict one another. There are no clear cut facts, the majority of issues come down to opinion and even those who are supposed experts in their field haven't got a scooby doo about what would or wouldn't happen.

This whole thing is a complete & utter waste of fucking time. Referendums are bollox, the ultimate tool for the delusion of democracy. The turn out percentage will be drivel, those that do turn out won't have a fucking clue what they're voting on, remain will win and everyone will hail democracy. We're staying in because transnational corporations have decided that's how it's gotta be not because it's the will of the people. The people have no will. If they did we wouldn't have these set of fucks controlling the world.

Regarding the press, they are reporting what the government has been saying. Like it or not, the government's opinion on the referendum is newsworthy. In terms of the TV media, I think the broadcasters have been striving to be even-handed. However, in terms of the print press, the Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express are all staunchly pro-Brexit, and The Daily Mirror (which is pro-remain) has actually not published many articles about the EU compared to the other papers, I think perhaps because a lot of their readers' would like to leave and they don't want to piss them off by editorialising in favour, so they're just not saying all that much.

Referendums are what people choose to make of them. You say we're staying in 'because transnational corporations have decided' but there is nothing actually stopping people voting to Leave. I'm actually not a big fan of referendums, as I don't think the whim of the public is always the best way for big issues to be decided, but surely this is as directly democratic as you're likely to get?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

You demean yourself by posting such drivel. The post you've quoted expresses my preference for PR (I even named my preferred type) and my wish to abolish the HoL. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the status quo, is it? If you think I'm a very good champion of undemocratic British institutions, you really haven't read widely enough. If you want some recommendations, just ask.

If nothing else, please pick up and work through a primer on informal logic, since then you might realise that being more concerned about X than Y does not make one unconcerned about Y (or a champion of Y). One can dislike the undemocratic nature of the HoL and the European Commission but have sound, non-xenophobic reasons for being more concerned about the latter. It doesn't require great acrobatics of thought.

Well, you did dismiss the point about having an unelected head of state as "fatuous". I would beg to differ on that front. While we perceive it to be a largely ceremonial role the monarch does, in theory, retain some fairly considerable powers - the ability to wage war, sign treaties dissolve parliament etc. And I think it's fairly uncontroversial to suggest that hereditary appointments in public life are fundamentally undemocratic and unmeritocratic. If we're so very concerned about democratic deficits should institutions like the monarchy not be dismantled (and if not why not)?

With regard to PR, you argued that "we keep voting against it" but we have, in recent memory, only have one opportunity to vote for something other than FPTP, and it took place in rather peculiar circumstances. There was only one choice (AV) on offer and even the Lib Dems, who had just made themselves hideously unpopular by going into government with the Tories, only seemed to view it as a stepping stone towards something they actually wanted. The Conservatives were fundamentally opposed to it and the Labour party were lukewarm at best (I seem to remember that you also weren't sold on the need for change at the time). We've never elected a government who stood for election promising it, no. But that's because it suits the two main parties to maintain the status quo.

As it happens, I'm actually fairly relaxed about the monarchy but I don't really see how it can be justified on an intellectual level. I'm not sure the fact that It's our anti-democratic institution, goddamit, and it works for us! elevates it above the more anti-democratic EU elements. It does seem a little bit perverse to me that people should be so very worried about the European Union when, back home, a party can form a majority and potentially push quite a radical agenda, having secured little over a third of the popular vote on a 65% turn out. I don't think we ought to refrain from criticising EU institutions but, by golly, it seems reasonable to insist that we get out own house in order first (when most people's votes count for nothing, and we have little in the way of serious checks on the government's power, I'd suggest that the various bodies of the EU ought not to be our primary focus).

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

That's just not true. With a few exceptions the media bias has been massively in favour of remain. I suppose that's to be expected but to suddenly present the remain campaign as plucky underdogs is laughable.

Hmm, don't agree with this in the slightest http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...-national-press-is-biased-in-favour-of-brexit

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Hmm, don't agree with this in the slightest http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...-national-press-is-biased-in-favour-of-brexit

That article has a pretty fundamental flaw.

It moans about there not being enough balance in the print industry on the EU issue. Yet admits that itself puts out more Remain leaning articles than it does Leave because that's what they believe is right.

It goes on to say that the Mail and Express put out too many Leave articles. But if you buy the Mail or Express you've probably had your opinion on the EU formed for years and thus won't be swayed anyway. Otherwise why would you buy it.

I'm struggling to see what point that piece is trying to make.

Newspapers are a poor way to judge media bias, because each of them IS obviously biased from the outset and everyone who buys a paper (these days especially) surely knows that.