European Union Referendum

[Liverlad]

You've really drunk the Farage Cool-Aid haven't you.

Nope, why can that bellend also see what a scam the EU is?

 

[Alty]

I enjoyed the bit of confusion earlier over the European Council vs the Council of the European Union. You just have to laugh. It's all so esoteric I suppose we should have known the campaign would shift away from the institutions and the distribution of power and towards the economy (because of course we'll go bankrupt post-Brexit) and immigration (because of course 5 million Turks will come here if we remain in).

The discussion earlier about who leads in the EU or who has the most influence...I thinks it's really looking at things the wrong way. Juncker, Tusk and Merkel have more influence in certain areas than others, but the problem is that almost everything the EU does is a fudge that has to satisfy 28 very different cultures and political systems.

Take Greece. The Greek economy - Christ, way of life, even - is not equivalent to Germany. The way that country is being treated is absolutely deplorable. And for what? To save the Euro, a flawed currency, and to send out a message to all of Southern Europe that endless austerity is the answer to economic problems.

Another example. Poland. It's all very well for countries like Sweden or Germany to announce all migrants are welcome and for the unelected European Commission to demand that all member states take their share. But Poland has a unique history, one which has seen the country come under direct threat of annihilation and which has made them suspicious of attempts to water down or alter their culture. Is it really wise to tell Poland they'll be taking tens of thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea etc?

The UK is one of the more influential member states, but in reality this counts for very little. The point is that if our arguments don't win the day, more often than not we have to accept whatever else is put on the table. As an independent country we wouldn't have to do that. We could try to thrash out deals on whatever issue - trade/security/finances/migration - bilaterally. And if no satisfactory deal was achievable, we'd just walk away.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Apparently we'll pump £100m a week more in to the NHS if we vote leave. The out campaign's random number generator is in full swing I see.

 

[Alty]

Apparently we'll pump £100m a week more in to the NHS if we vote leave. The out campaign's random number generator is in full swing I see.

The Remain leaflet I was handed yesterday contained similarly bollocks figures. Let's just ignore all that stuff and concentrate on the bigger picture.

 

[.V.]

The Remain leaflet I was handed yesterday contained similarly bollocks figures. Let's just ignore all that stuff and concentrate on the bigger picture.

It's depressing that neither side can be relied on to give us unspun facts. Hardly a surprise given the Tories have blamed Labour for a global recession the last 6 years.

 

[markwwfc1992]

For what its worth, the bookies odds have gone from 4-1 to 2-1 in some places in a matter of a fortnight... on us to leave the EU.

 

[Krazy8]

It's depressing that neither side can be relied on to give us unspun facts. Hardly a surprise given the Tories have blamed Labour for a global recession the last 6 years.

That's true though

 

[Aber gas]

That's true though

I find it mind boggling that anyone would think that a Labour government would have the influence to cause a global recession tbh

 

[silkyman]

It was clearly Gordon Brown's fault that the US housing bubble burst in 2004.

 

[silkyman]

Arf.

UKIP MEP used EU rules to stop UK judge from imposing UK laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36392015

Ok when you do it, is it you hypocritical cuntweasel?

 

[1884 Belmont]

Arf.

UKIP MEP used EU rules to stop UK judge from imposing UK laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36392015

Ok when you do it, is it you hypocritical cuntweasel?

See, this is a microcosm of the whole debate in one post. Ignoring who was involved, this is a situation where an EU institution is stopping a UK institution applying UK law. Surely people shouldn't be focusing on the absolute irony of the person's political affiliation and instead see the fact at hand. It's become a popularity contest and both sides have just abandoned facts in favour of what they want to hear.

For what it's worth, Britain does have representation in EU law making. One person, out of a 28 strong commission, appointed by the government and speaking on behalf of 70 million. One person. Is that how we are going to define democracy? 1 person speaks for 70 million and 28 dictate to 500+ million? The 'Remain' campaign wheels out all sorts of reasons to stay, but how many of them are facts?

Leaving the EU could help us transform it from the outside much more readily and quickly than we ever could from within. As I have previously said, the government appoint our 1 commissioner and they have another 4 years left on their UK mandate. Now, a big argument put forward by the 'Remain' camp is that leaving lets the Tories do what they want, but they don't seem as vocal about the fact that our one and only representation in EU law making was appointed by them. Therefore, if we stay in the EU, the only voice coming from Britain is the same voice they are frightening people into avoiding post-Brexit. Surely by leaving, that would send a more immediate and impactful statement of indictment of the current EU and, if it inspired other EU referendums in other member states, could be a force for greater, more appropriate changes?

I'm not claiming to know all the answers, but there is a genuine debate to be had and none of the 'professionals' are doing a good job of it.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

See, this is a microcosm of the whole debate in one post. Ignoring who was involved, this is a situation where an EU institution is stopping a UK institution applying UK law.

Erm, no it isn't. Try reading the article again.

 

[1884 Belmont]

Erm, no it isn't. Try reading the article again.

Yes it is. Who has done it or why is secondary to the fact that it can be done. Can it sometimes be used for good? Absolutely, as in this case. But the fact that it can be done at all is anti-democratic in my opinion. You can't be a hypocrite about things like this (not calling you one, just a more general observation) - if it's wrong when it's saying something you disagree with, it's wrong when it's saying something you agree with too.

Nobody should be able to go to the EU and overturn British laws for any reason.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yes it is. Who has done it or why is secondary to the fact that it can be done. Can it sometimes be used for good? Absolutely, as in this case. But the fact that it can be done at all is anti-democratic in my opinion. You can't be a hypocrite about things like this (not calling you one, just a more general observation) - if it's wrong when it's saying something you disagree with, it's wrong when it's saying something you agree with too.

Nobody should be able to go to the EU and overturn British laws for any reason.

An EU institution isn't stopping anything. An MEP is simply making a fairly brazen attempt to delay judicial proceedings. The European Parliament puts protections for MEPs in place in order to protect their freedom of expression and independence, much like we do with the concept of parliamentary privilege. Clearly this ought not to extend to a libellous speech made at a party political conference and I, much like the iudge who thinks it "improbable" that she'll be granted immunity, can't imagine the committee will find in her favour.

 

[1884 Belmont]

An EU institution isn't stopping anything. An MEP is simply making a fairly brazen attempt to delay judicial proceedings. The European Parliament puts protections for MEPs in place in order to protect their freedom of expression and independence, much like we do with the concept of parliamentary privilege. Clearly this ought not to extend to a libellous speech made at a party political conference and I, much like the iudge who thinks it "improbable" that she'll be granted immunity, can't imagine the committee will find in her favour.

An MEP (a member of an EU institution) appealed to the European Parliament (an EU institution) to, as you say, brazenly attempt to delay judicial proceedings in a UK court. Regardless of whether or not they are successful, the chance that an EU institution *could* overrule our courts is worrying.

 

[silkyman]

It's not like it's something that's going to aleffect anyone else unless you are planning on libelling anyone at a party conference while an MEP.

What it is, and all it is, is someone hypocritically using the very systems she is campaigning against to her benefit. She is afforded certain rights as an MEP while at European Parliament. She is trying to claim those same rights in a totally unrelated situation.

It's like an ambassador claiming diplomatic immunity while back home visiting his mum.

The fact the doesn't actually know how this rule actually works because being a UKIP MEP, she probably couldn't find the her seat in the parliament without a Sherpa guide, makes it even funnier.

If it wasn't some UKIP fruit loop, I might be minded to call it quite clever.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

 

[Kopper]

If we left the EU nothing would change. We would still trade with it and a condition of that trade is free movement.
A lot of people seem to forget we have a trade deficit. In layman's terms a trade deficit is like you going down to your local supermarket and getting your weekly shop on tic. Except you never pay it back and you get to go back to the same supermarket as many times as you like and do it all over again.
We could probably do this if we left, but probably not to the same extent, as we are now.

 

[Max]

Being in the EU doesn't directly impact our voting in general elections, but it does make them a bit less meaningless considering any laws any of our elected politicians make are subject to approval by the bigwigs at the EU. Hence us getting less of a say as voters compared to if were fully independent.

Any laws are subject to approval? Really? Some of them are, yes, but not all of them. Not most of them.

The Germans basically are the EU at this point...

What does that actually mean?

 

[JaseTheVillain]

If we left the EU nothing would change. We would still trade with it and a condition of that trade is free movement.

Well that's bullshit and we all know it. Do China have a free movement agreement with the EU? Are the USA going to have one? How about India? I get that these countries all have much larger populations than us, but economically, we are in the same ballpark (especially as India), so I fail to see how we would supposedly be held to ransom by the EU if we left. If we leave, it'll collapse, if we don't, it'll collapse slower. Either which way, the EU is going down. In my opinion it is just a case of whether we go down with it, or abandon a sinking ship.

 

[Kopper]

Neither the USA or China are geographically linked to Europe. Free movement is designed to be within Europe. Which we are.
Switzerland had two referendums in 2014 concerning immigration from the EU. In the first referendum they voted on limits to migration. Between the first and second referendum the Swiss government had the opportunity to inform it's citizens about the consequences of abandoning trade with the EU. The Swiss people promptly reversed their earlier decision in the second referendum.

Jase you're being disingenuous when you question the link between EU trade and free movement. Free movement is a founding tenet of the EU. They won't let us have our cake and eat it. Leave, abandon free movement and trade with Europe. Forget it!

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

The Remain leaflet I was handed yesterday contained similarly bollocks figures. Let's just ignore all that stuff and concentrate on the bigger picture.

I would love to debate this point but as of yet, we have had fuck all through the post about it.

 

[Alty]

Lucky you. I can't escape these bloody leaflets. There are people handing out Remain leaflets at train/tube stations all the time. But then I do live in the East End and work in Westminster, both of which are pro-EU strongholds. The main focus for both sides now seems to be getting the vote out.

 

[Kopper]

If the EU didn't benefit this country the Conservatives wouldn't be campaigning for it. Neither would we have been so desperate to join the single market in the 60's. Most of you probably know we were twice rejected for membership.
The most damning thing about brexit is the EU doesn't give a toss if we're in or out. What does that tell you?
If our contribution to Europe was so great, as we're lead to believe, the EU ministers would cave into the asinine demands Cameron wanted. Yet they water down those proposals and still refuse to make a decision on them.

Some don't recall the EU is (among other things) meant to be a bulwark against superpower and would be superpower's interests, that conflict with our own.

 

[.V.]

I would love to debate this point but as of yet, we have had fuck all through the post about it.

I've had two Brexit leaflets, one of which particularly annoyed me as it set itself up as being impartial, but was actually from a Brexit group. The only remain stuff I had was from the government.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

I found this article useful.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2...-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum/

 

[Alty]

I found this article useful.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2...-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum/

Don't think there was a single line of positivity about Europe in that. All just doom mongering about the alternative.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Similar build up to the Scottish referendum, when the Nationalists surged in the polls before the vote but ultimately fell short. I still think OUT will have to be polling at least a 10% lead to win it on the day. Praying they don't.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Don't think there was a single line of positivity about Europe in that. All just doom mongering about the alternative.

I'd say there's a bit of positivity.

1.Historically there have been great benefits from waves of immigration, from the Huguenots to today’s NHS workers. The best available evidence shows that current immigrants are net fiscal contributors and ‘[t]he contributions of those who stay in Britain may well increase.

2.Trade matters greatly. There is near-universal agreement among economists that trade contributes to higher living standards, and that reducing restrictions on trade generally increases the gains

Plus there's a whole section on the benefits.

Benefits of EU membership
The argument is not only about the costs of leaving but also about the benefits of membership.

• Peace should not be underestimated because so few people are left who can remember the Second World War. The EU has also helped to consolidate democracy in Southern European countries formerly under military dictatorships and in former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
• Membership of the world’s largest economy creates considerable economic benefits.
• Membership gives greater control of the international environment (climate change, control of multinationals, action on tax havens).
• Free movement benefits the large numbers of Brits who live and work in other EU countries, something of particular relevance to younger people who live and work in other EU countries for part of their career and older people who retire to warmer climes.

Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure you can dismiss it as a negative article.

I particularly found the part about the build up of the £350m a week figure useful.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

That's a pretty meek list of benefits, especially given that one doesn't really affect us, one is a lie, and another is the main reason many want to leave in the first place.