European Union Referendum

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Of course, but every non-EU exchange I met (bar one American girl who had this crazy scholarship) could only come as they had wealthy parents. Foreign students in the UK have to pay even higher tuition fees than us, then of course there are the high costs of living and travel etc. Erasmus averts this as you don't pay fees to your host university, your fees to your own university cover this. Then there is the centrally awarded grant which all get, a massive help towards living costs. The links created between the participating universities is closer than anything I've seen outside this and nowhere near the scale of people involved either..

don't have to be in the eu to be in the eramus programme fwiw

 

[Alty]

Those German political satire videos by the way...fucking hell. It's like they set out to make the German version of the Daily Show as unfunny as possible.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

well, yeah. 'german'

 

[Tilbury]

don't have to be in the eu to be in the eramus programme fwiw

No but when Switzerland imposed restrictions on immigration (in 2014 I believe) they were cut from the programme. If we leave the same thing will happen 100%.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

didn't know about that tbh

 

[Alty]

I've received two booklets today. One from EFDD (UKIP) and the other from the Government.

The UKIP one is a good piece of campaign literature, I guess. But it's definitely the work of tabloid journalists. Snappy headlines, puns, cartoons, with bits of analysis dotted in between.

That Government one is an absolute disgrace. Fair play if the public have said they want more information on the topic. But campaign literature sent out with Government insignia all over it is a complete piss take. Typical of Cameron and Osborne though.

 

[silkyman]

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016...ow-incompetent-they-really-are/#comment-96571

 

[Carver]

So if we stay in the EU we risk being taken over by Isis who would force us to become an Islamic nation and take us back to the dark ages in the process, but if we leave the EU then we risk being ruled by a tyranny from some evil Tory dictator sometime in the future and nothing could protect us from them.

Tough choice.

 

[Tilbury]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36057947
'Boris Johnson has accused US President Barack Obama of "hypocrisy" over his support for the UK remaining in the EU.
The London mayor, who backs EU exit, told the BBC the Americans "wouldn't dream of sharing their sovereignty" as the UK had done.
The US president is expected to repeat his support for Britain's EU membership when he visits the UK next week.'

Obama, head of one of the biggest federal states in the world. This argument doesn't float.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Oh come on.

 

[Alty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36057947
'Boris Johnson has accused US President Barack Obama of "hypocrisy" over his support for the UK remaining in the EU.
The London mayor, who backs EU exit, told the BBC the Americans "wouldn't dream of sharing their sovereignty" as the UK had done.
The US president is expected to repeat his support for Britain's EU membership when he visits the UK next week.'

Obama, head of one of the biggest federal states in the world. This argument doesn't float.

I think it's your argument that's sinking.

Whether any other state is federal or unitary, it doesn't mean its leader is well-placed to come to the UK and tell us we should be in political union with Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovenia et al.

The idea that the US is a blueprint for, or directly comparable to, the EU is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Tilbury]

Where did I say it was a blueprint or directly comparable?

 

[Alty]

Where did I say it was a blueprint or directly comparable?

If that wasn't your implication then your point makes even less sense.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Barry is welcome to come over and say what he likes. I bloody hate the argument on the Brexit side that him 'intervening' on the subject (i.e. giving his opinion) is somehow beyond the pale. We're supposed to be a confident liberal democracy, not some insecure third world dictatorship. Hear the chap out.

The more understandable concern is that the UK media will do what it usually does when he visits, which is fawn over him as though he's some kind of rock star. He's not a rock star. He's the (outgoing) elected leader of a country with which we have an extremely complex relationship, part of which is them seeing us as their natural proxy in Europe. So what's needed all round is robust scepticism tempered by good manners.

Why doesn't the US have a freedom of movement arrangement with Mexico and Canada? Why isn't the US committed to a constitutional settlement in which judges from Colombia, Argentina or Guatemala can overrule the US Supreme Court? If supranationalism is so great for the UK and the rest of Europe, why not for the US? In the case of Brexit, what would he like to see (or envision) regarding US-UK trade? These are the sort of questions that should be asked.

Instead they'll probably ask him how Michelle and the girls are, before inviting him to share an amusing anecdote about meeting the Queen.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Barry is welcome to come over and say what he likes. I bloody hate the argument on the Brexit side that him 'intervening' on the subject (i.e. giving his opinion) is somehow beyond the pale. We're supposed to be a confident liberal democracy, not some insecure third world dictatorship. Hear the chap out.

The more understandable concern is that the UK media will do what it usually does when he visits, which is fawn over him as though he's some kind of rock star. He's not a rock star. He's the (outgoing) elected leader of a country with which we have an extremely complex relationship, part of which is them seeing us as their natural proxy in Europe. So what's needed all round is robust scepticism tempered by good manners.

Why doesn't the US have a freedom of movement arrangement with Mexico and Canada? Why isn't the US committed to a constitutional settlement in which judges from Colombia, Argentina or Guatemala can overrule the US Supreme Court? If supranationalism is so great for the UK and the rest of Europe, why not for the US? In the case of Brexit, what would he like to see (or envision) regarding US-UK trade? These are the sort of questions that should be asked.

Instead they'll probably ask him how Michelle and the girls are, before inviting him to share an amusing anecdote about meeting the Queen.

surely the argument would be that columbia, argentina et al are essentially new jersey, arizona and oregon. the original u.s. was a lot less of a state than it is now, and federal government was a lot weaker. leaving it as more of an eu entity than a state. that was always the intention i believe, united 'states' of america

 

[Tilbury]

surely the argument would be that columbia, argentina et al are essentially new jersey, arizona and oregon. the original u.s. was a lot less of a state than it is now, and federal government was a lot weaker. leaving it as more of an eu entity than a state. that was always the intention i believe, united 'states' of america

Yes this is exactly my point. 'These United States are' was the most common title until the civil war. Between then and ww2 'The United states is' became the exclusively used term. If you listen closely though, especially in recent years, you can hear the president (mistakenly?) use these instead of the, perhaps an indication of the increasingly fractured nature of us politics.
It seems strange to think of Texans sharing sovereignty with Georgians, but that's to do with the impressive way in which an American national identity has been created and maintained in the last century and a half. It's something which I don't think ever can or will happen in Europe.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it also helps put events like the oregon protest and subsequent occupation of federal land in better context. too often it's framed as american nuts doing as american nuts will, like cornish seperatists on crack, instead of, say, an angry ukip that's lost the war

 

[silkyman]

Who on here would consider themselves as most knowledgable on this?

I'm thinking that if people put themselves forward we can have one 'brexit' and one 'bremain' (I know, I know) champion.

A lot of people on here seem to be the same as me in the 'fucked if I know because I can't filter through the absolute bullshit' camp. It seems that there are votes out there to be won, so....

Start us off with 10 bullet points.

Why in 1-10
Why out 1-10

 

[.V.]

If we vote to leave the EU they will cut off their nose to spite their face, in order set a deterrent to any other country who thinks about leaving. There's no way they'll try to work out a deal favourable to Britain.

 

[johnnytodd]

I'm voting leave cos i have a decent passport photo ..........hope this gives others another angle on the debate.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

surely the argument would be that columbia, argentina et al are essentially new jersey, arizona and oregon. the original u.s. was a lot less of a state than it is now, and federal government was a lot weaker. leaving it as more of an eu entity than a state. that was always the intention i believe, united 'states' of america

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.

 

[mowgli]

If we vote to leave the EU they will cut off their nose to spite their face, in order set a deterrent to any other country who thinks about leaving. There's no way they'll try to work out a deal favourable to Britain.

And if we leave (Which i will be voting for) we won't be the last country to ditch The EU especially if Turkey's population are given free movement.

 

[.V.]

And if we leave (Which i will be voting for) we won't be the last country to ditch The EU especially if Turkey's population are given free movement.

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

 

[Alty]

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

So basically they're determined to keep the EU together by terror, and are willing to make life more difficult for everyone in order to preserve it?

I still have lingering doubts about there being that level of fanaticism widespread enough for a "punishment" to be doled out to us. But even if there is - isn't that all the more reason to get out of political union with these maniacs?

 

[mowgli]

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

How will they hammer us? By stop selling us their cars and white goods? No country could afford to lose that sort of money no matter how pissed off with us they are. Plus we can protect our borders so The EU will have a larger amount of immigrants to share in a dwindling EU especially if others vote to leave. France and Italy will be watching closely on how we get on after leaving something the Germans will be terrified of as financially they will be paying more money to keep the corrupt and spendthrift EU going.

 

[.V.]

So basically they're determined to keep the EU together by terror, and are willing to make life more difficult for everyone in order to preserve it?

I still have lingering doubts about there being that level of fanaticism widespread enough for a "punishment" to be doled out to us. But even if there is - isn't that all the more reason to get out of political union with these maniacs?

They'll want to make it more difficult for a member to leave the EU, by sending a message. It's not a good thing, but has to be taken into consideration.

Not when going it alone has grave consequences, and when no credible case for what a post Brexit Britain will look like. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the one you don't.

I also don't trust the Conservatives not to hurt us further, when we no longer have the ECHR to protect us.

 

[.V.]

How will they hammer us? By stop selling us their cars and white goods? No country could afford to lose that sort of money no matter how pissed off with us they are. Plus we can protect our borders so The EU will have a larger amount of immigrants to share in a dwindling EU especially if others vote to leave. France and Italy will be watching closely on how we get on after leaving something the Germans will be terrified of as financially they will be paying more money to keep the corrupt and spendthrift EU going.

I'm no expert on the EU but I suspect it'll cost us a lot more to trade with them.

Protect our boarders like Norway or Switzerland you mean?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...witzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

 

[Alty]

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.

 

[silkyman]

They'll want to make it more difficult for a member to leave the EU, by sending a message. It's not a good thing, but has to be taken into consideration.

Not when going it alone has grave consequences, and when no credible case for what a post Brexit Britain will look like. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the one you don't.

I also don't trust the Conservatives not to hurt us further, when we no longer have the ECHR to protect us.

I've really not heard anything from the out campaign that goes much further than xenophobic posturing on 'protecting borders' (and again, if we really CAN'T do this, then why is every resident of The Jungle camp not already here? We must be able to protect them a bit... We've got sea there and everything.) and the positive angle is not much more than 'We'll be better off out of Europe because WE'RE BRITAIN AND WE'RE FUCKING AWESOME'

(If we do vote out and Scotland break away and then go back in, will we need to rebuild Hadrian's Wall with passport control at every crossing?)

 

[Alty]

I've really not heard anything from the out campaign that goes much further than xenophobic posturing on 'protecting borders' (and again, if we really CAN'T do this, then why is every resident of The Jungle camp not already here? We must be able to protect them a bit... We've got sea there and everything.) and the positive angle is not much more than 'We'll be better off out of Europe because WE'RE BRITAIN AND WE'RE FUCKING AWESOME'

(If we do vote out and Scotland break away and then go back in, will we need to rebuild Hadrian's Wall with passport control at every crossing?)

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe you're a complete plank. So let's see if you can understand a few very simple points.

1. All you've heard from Leave is xenophobic stuff about borders? Are you sure about that? Because most of the noise from Leave over the last few days has been about trade and the judiciary, most notably from Grayling, Gove and Johnson.

2. All EU nationals or those with a permanent right of residence elsewhere in the EU can come to Britain. Circa 600 million people. Those camped at Calais are not EU citizens (and should claim asylum in France if they're truly desperate - if they can demonstrate a clear family link to the UK when engaging with the French, they'll be allowed to go to the UK, by the way). Simple stuff. Not hard to understand really.

3. Scotland's referendum took place at a time when the electorate knew an EU referendum could be on the cards. That was (or should have been) a factor in how people voted. They chose to stay. So that's it for a generation. It's over. What happens in the EU referendum is irrelevant to the Scottish independence question. They're a fully integrated part of the U.K. and Sturgeon can fuck off if she thinks she's getting another bite at the cherry.