European Union Referendum

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

The success of the Remain campaign is convincing so many people that this is all about economics.

Imagine thinking people shouldn't be swayed by economic arguments!

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Any good links out there for factual non-biased information for both sides of the argument?

Don't be so absurd.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Any good links out there for factual non-biased information for both sides of the argument?

No. You'll have to read through some shit and try and wade through the bullshit. There's plenty from both sides.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Having an Angela, Amber and Andrea on this is too much for me.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Not sure how people 'call' these debates, people tend to side with who they agree with rather than who performs better.Thought Remain got dragged into attacking Johnson, as correct as they were, a bit too much. I like Angela Eagle a lot though, would be a good leader I think. The Leave camp overused 'take back control' but I suppose they're trying to drum in the chest-beating 'hurrah' narrative. Johnson was poor at first but had a couple of good examples to hand at the end.

Doubt it will have any impact.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

First, sorry for the very late reply. You know the circumstances (baby still doing fine, BTW), but my apologies nonetheless.

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)?

We "perceive it to be a largely ceremonial role" because, in practice, it is. It's notable that you listed some powers but provided no examples of the monarch using and/or abusing them. Now since you're actually half-decent at debating and know that theoretical points are more cogent if supported by real life examples, I assume the omission is attributable to you not knowing any. And I further assume that you don't know any not because you're an ignorant jackanapes but because there aren't any to know of. Am I right?

Fond though I am of political theory, it matters less than lived experience of how individuals behave and how institutions actually work. Liz having inherited political power does grate on that 'intellectual level', but my concern disappears as soon as I relocate the grievance to the sphere of lived experience. Since there is a well-established trend of her not using those powers (at least not in any reckless, indulgent and unilateral sense), I don't care. Why worry about it? I imagine your lack of concern ("I'm actually fairly relaxed") is rooted in a similar understanding.

The monarchy doesn't get a pass because it's British and, my gum, that makes everything jolly well spiffing and fine. The point is that it concerns me considerably less than various other undemocratic institutions because there's a degree of trust there, one rooted in decades of lived experience. There is no such equivalent for the EU. I could sit here till dawn listing examples that illustrate my various anti-EU gripes, especially the democratic ones. That's the important difference.

The "unelected Head of State" argument only has rhetorical force if you smuggle in an assumption that the Head of State is a political figure with an influential role (as opposed to a merely ceremonial one) in our political and judicial decision-making processes. In our case, however, that assumption is false, thus rendering the argument fatuous. Abolishing the monarchy might give us the outward appearance of being a more meritocratic country than we actually are (would that be a good thing?), but in practical terms it would do nothing to improve our democracy. It would serve only to castrate an institution that has long resigned itself to political impotence.

Also, one should be careful not to conflate meritocracy and democracy. They are fundamentally different things.

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.

I wasn't keen on AV but I did vote for it. I want a more proportional electoral system, so my basic take was that a tentative and rather uninspiring step in that direction was preferable to a endorsing the status quo, which is effectively what the decisive "no" vote in that referendum delivered. No doubt the timing and circumstances were… inauspicious, but ultimately people were asked directly if they wanted a more proportional electoral system and a strong majority decided they didn't.

Similarly, people are now being asked whether the UK should stay in or leave the EU. From a Leave perspective, now is not the best time to be having the referendum; but ultimately you have to trust people to understand what they're being asked and why it's important. My argument has always been that our relationship with the EU has no democratic legitimacy because we haven't been asked a direct question on it for 40+ years. Well, now we are. And if a majority vote Remain, they'll be no more complaining. At least not from me. As I've said before, we get the democracy we deserve.

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.

I think my first answer covers this.

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).

I'm afraid I don't see the rationale here. If we continue down the path we've been tiptoeing for the last 40+ years, our national institutions will only become less and less relevant. Abolish the monarchy, ditch FPTP, scrap the HoL… none of that would matter if we concurrently remained in the EU and continued the slow but steady process of transferring decision-making powers to unelected technocrats in Brussels. What good is it to improve the democratic process through which we elect British legislators if they're just going to gold-plate decisions made elsewhere, and by people over whom we have little-to-no democratic control?

If the principal concern is democracy – or, to be more precise, people having some democratic power and control over those who make decisions on their behalf – then the main concern has to be the EU. If you want greater power and oversight over politicians, then it's utter folly to focus on relatively powerless institutions like the monarchy and the HoL while hoofing the issue of EU membership into the tall grass. I get that it's easier – especially for Brits, who by and large seem to prefer self-flagellation to being outwardly critical of anything vaguely 'foreign' – but it's still folly.

Final thought: even if you disagree on what should be given priority, the simple and incontestable fact is we're having a referendum on EU membership. Unelected folk in the HoL, FPTP being an anachronism and any other domestic issue can be dealt with at some point in the future, regardless of how we vote in two weeks' time. It's not an either/or choice. We don't forgo the ability to deal with those problems if we vote to leave the European Union. I realise that democracy isn't everyone's principal concern, but people who do care about it ought to focus their minds on the present and ask a simple question: do we improve our democracy by remaining in the EU, or by leaving? Right now, the other stuff is a trivial distraction.

 

[Alty]

I thought it improved as it went on, actually. Obviously I'm biased but I thought Leave won comfortably. Johnson and Leadsom had good nights, I thought Leadsom outlined the £350m point particularly well. Stuart wasn't brilliant but her mere presence always helps to dispel the myth that Euroscepticism is all about right-wing xenophobia.

I thought Sturgeon started well but lost it a bit after Johnson quoted her own words back to her about negative campaigning. Eagle was average and Rudd was terrible. How many fucking times did she say "level with the British people"? It was like listening to a robot.

 

[Alty]

Eddie Izzard making a twat of himself on QT.

A shame, I quite like some of his stand-up.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Imagine thinking people shouldn't be swayed by economic arguments!

Imagine thinking anyone thinks that.

 

[Gashead]

Eddie Izzard making a twat of himself on QT.

A shame, I quite like some of his stand-up.

Agreed, bit of a shambles.

 

[mowgli]

Eddie Izzard making a twat of himself on QT.

A shame, I quite like some of his stand-up.

He embarrassed himself with his behaviour and did nothing for the remain campaign last night.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Yeah I'm not even sure what Izzard was trying to achieve whilst making a tit of himself.

The point he got most worked up about, regarding Farage's family/family history, has been put to Farage countless times by countless people and he was always going to deal with it easily. And it's not even relevant to the debate in any way. Izzard made a fool of himself trying to argue a point that is meaningless. Debate the bloody issues, nobody is going to decide which way to vote based on Nigel Farage's wife FFS.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

I thought it improved as it went on, actually. Obviously I'm biased but I thought Leave won comfortably. Johnson and Leadsom had good nights, I thought Leadsom outlined the £350m point particularly well. Stuart wasn't brilliant but her mere presence always helps to dispel the myth that Euroscepticism is all about right-wing xenophobia.

I thought Sturgeon started well but lost it a bit after Johnson quoted her own words back to her about negative campaigning. Eagle was average and Rudd was terrible. How many fucking times did she say "level with the British people"? It was like listening to a robot.

You can hardly talk about repetition, 'take control' 'take control'...childish and that's what it all boiled down, numerous time the leave politicians had no point to make but just bark on about 'taking control'. Leave again were all about the 'emotional' politics, as the the whole campaign has been about, Johnson being caught out lying was funny.

Sturgeon is fantastic, such a shame she's only concerning her with one part of the country at the moment as I agree with her on most things.
.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Yeah, I like Sturgeon to be fair (didn't watch the debate though).

I have just been reading the HYS section on the BBC News, it never fails to amuse me. What does surprise me is how pro-leave it is though. Overwhelmingly so, judging by the top-rated comments. I liked this one in particular (4th most popular)

Short term financial gain (Remain)
Vs
Long term freedom (Leave)

That's about all that's really known, everything else is opinion.

He obviously went to the Braveheart school of soundbites.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's about as succinct a representation of the situation as you're going to get in so few words.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Not really. They're both opinions dressed up as fact.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Which one would you dispute?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Both. It's an opinion that there's a short-term financial gain. If anything Leave is more likely to be a short-term financial loss.

The second point about freedom is a little vague. Freedom from what?

 

[Benji]

Serious question. Why do people think the EU is undemocratic?

 

[silkyman]

Serious question. Why do people think the EU is undemocratic?

Probably for the same reason they believe that leaving will immediately see £350m a week flowing to the NHS, that the accounts haven't been signed off in 20 years and 'most' of our laws are set by Brussels.

Because that's what they've been told by the right wing press.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Serious question. Why do people think the EU is undemocratic?

If Britain votes to stay in the EU, I'll start wearing a bowler. That's a promise.

 

[Alty]

Serious question. Why do people think the EU is undemocratic?

Because the European Commission is the only branch that has the right to initiate legislation, but none of the 28 people who make up the Commission are elected.

 

[Alty]

Probably for the same reason they believe that leaving will immediately see £350m a week flowing to the NHS, that the accounts haven't been signed off in 20 years and 'most' of our laws are set by Brussels.

Because that's what they've been told by the right wing press.

I used to think you were just childish. But you're actually an extremely stupid person. Every time you give an opinion on anything you sound like a man who's never heard any counter arguments to your position.

 

[mnb089mnb]

I used to think you were just childish. But you're actually an extremely stupid person.

Ahahahhaha

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Which one would you dispute?

It's quite cute that people view it as some struggle for 'freedom', I supposed the disillusioned, white men of the country resent the progress of others quite a lot, they have to their cause and 'Brexit' seems to be what they've found.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Think we've now reached peak stupid (if we hadn't already). Thank fuck it'll all be over soon.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Wouldn't it be funny if all of Europe starts wearing bowlers after this election?

 

[Conker]

Serious question. Why do people think the EU is undemocratic?

How can anybody find the EU democratic? The remain lot have made sure they stay clear from that question for a reason.

 

[Kopper]

It's quite cute that people view it as some struggle for 'freedom', I supposed the disillusioned, white men of the country resent the progress of others quite a lot, they have to their cause and 'Brexit' seems to be what they've found.

I'm sure those men knew the jig was up, when this country lost it's manufacturing base, some thirty plus years ago.
When you don't, even, make the clothes on your back. It's time to fall into line.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

I'm interested in the 5% of UKIP supporters who wouldn't vote leave. Did they not understand the question?