UKH

... as well they bl**dy well might. If we leave there is potentially a tidal wave of chaos that could be released. Here are some perfectly plausible scenarios:

Our economy will go into depression as trade deals are rescinded or have to be negotiated. This is almost a certainty, denied by no-one.
(Oh and by the way, the point of trade deals is that we have to agree on things like environmental protection, level paying fields and all the rest - it's never just a case of 'can I flog you stuff, please?')
The European economies will certainly wobble, at a guess even the Euro will fall as a result of the instability - the start of a vicious circle of reducing confidence and economic slow down, which could become global.
Europe and France in particular will kick our border controls out of France so we will receive MORE migrants, and transfer even more chaos to Dover and the South East.
Scotland will demand another referendum of their own, and this time probably win and become independent, with all the chaos that will entail
That will have a cascading effect in Europe e.g. the Basques, will also demand devolution or independence.
We will have to discuss and resolve any issues of mutual concern with our closest neighbours - the refugee crisis, ME conflicts, environmental issues, infrastructure projects, border controls, health issues, research projects - from the sidelines, and in a distinctly suspicious if not downright hostile atmosphere.
Other EU populations may start agitating against EU terms, and what with one thing another the entire project could unravel - no wonder Putin is a fan of Brexit!

And the Brexiteers are risking all this so EU officials can no longer tell us our bananas aren't straight enough, (which as we all know was one of good ole' Boris's outright lies anyway.)

I'm scared. We all should be. This isn't funny.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Nothing like joining in with a bit of scaremongering is there.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I expected a post about a group called "Remain Camp".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

But the Turks are coming! The Turks are coming!

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Which bit do you disagree with?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Just made that a little more accurate for you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Johnny Turk is welcome. Ask him to bring some baklava.

T.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes to all of that (thus voting No).

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I've not disagreed with anything.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If that lot isn't enough to scare everyone, then surely the following with a possible future UK cabinet will surely do the business

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/03/boris-johnson-post-brexit-c...

In reply to wynaptomos:

The verdict on UKC seem to be about 60/40 remain/leave, or so it feels to me. I noticed a poll on the MSE website earlier which has almost the exact opposite, with many more people wanting to leave (based on 26k votes last time I looked).

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/vote/31-05-2016/how-will-you-be-voting-in-...

I wonder why there is a difference in opinion on the two websites?

In reply to NottsRich:

UKC is probably a bit more middle class and better educated.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Have a watch of this. It's quite enlightening. The guy is spot on... and had me thinking of our referendum politicians.

vimeo.com/167796382

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As you've said.... These scenarios COULD happen. It's just as plausible that they won't, so what is your point!?!
I personally will be voting out. We already have very little say in Europe, and since Cameron went in with his demands and got very little, I feel that they are calling our bluff. We will have even less of a voice in Europe if we vote to stay, as they will see us as pathetically week IMHO.

The fact is the EU needs serious reform, and I feel that the only way to make that happen is to pull it down and start again.

In reply to seankenny:

UKC is probably a bit more richer and better educated is my view.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

'It's just as plausible that they won't'.

That is an assertion which simply isn't true. The slowdown has already started, as companies defer investment and recruitment decisions - this will only get worse. The US won't rush anytime soon into new agreements - their effing President has said so, explicitly. Nicola Sturgeon will definitely demand a referendum, and will be hard to refuse. The UK border controls in France will be closed.

None of this is 50/50 speculation, this is going to happen. It *could* destabilise Europe for a generation or more.

In reply to Removed User:


I don't think you can vote 'no'.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I wish to hear no more about it, I put my X on my postal vote today so that's it for me. I need listen no more, done and dusted.

In reply to Fredt:


Should we leave the EU? OK, remain, in, whatever you prefer.

In reply to Removed User:


The question is not loaded in the way you suggest. It is:

'Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'
You say 'Yes' to either:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, I see that now, thanks. FWIW, I'm very much voting Yes to remain.

In reply to Removed User:

Ditto. Cheers.

In reply to ScottTalbot:




When it comes to EU decisions we have a lot of say
When it comes to DC claiming he'll go to the EU and say "the UK no longer wants the core rules of the EU but still wants in"...then no of course they won t change. No one in their right mind expected it to come to anything, he just promised something that would never happen to get votes back fro ukip

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whilst I agree that it is likely that UK borders in France will be closed, it isn't certain, as the agreement is outside of the EU. Either side can end the deal with six months notice, leaving the EU obviously makes this more likely.

I'm just picking a minor point in your post, most of which I very much agree with.

In reply to ScottTalbot:




Totally wrong. We have as much say in Europe as anyone else and, if this is what is bothering you, right now we can veto Turkey joining. Vote out and we have zero say.

>Cameron went in with his demands and got very little, I feel that they are calling our bluff. We will have even less of a voice in Europe if we vote to stay, as they will see us as pathetically week IMHO.

Its not us against them, though, its reaching concensus about what is right for the whole of Europe. The UK aren't the only country trying to change the conditions of their membership. Its democracy and diplomacy in action.


Yes, it needs some reform, but only really in the transparency of its operation.

>and I feel that the only way to make that happen is to pull it down and start again.

So, assuming that we have the economic wherewithall to try to re-unite Europe again, and Germany wanted anything to do with being in union with the UK again, what would you do differently (and explain why that can't be done through the normal processes of democracy) ?

In reply to GrahamD:

My comment on your post;

The only way we can really change things is via our veto - not the best way to run a democracy. Imagine if the far right had a veto.

In reply to seankenny:

...thus being less effected by immigration - which tends to impact on those looking for work doing un/low skilled and low paid work.

I'm in favour of staying in, but with the issue of immigration (probably incorrectly) being used as part of Brexit, I can see why people who are lower paid and lower skilled (and likely less educated too) would be more likely to be in favour of leaving.

Until I get my degree I'll probably be doing low paid and low skilled jobs, but hey ho...

In reply to Timmd:



They are being stiffed by cuts in public sector spending - the effects of immigration are real, but they're not as big as people think they are. Get rid of the immigrants, lower your economy, yes even less money to build more schools and hospitals, etc.

In reply to Timmd:


Or at least so they believe, because that's what the right-wing billionaire sociopaths who own most of our media tell them every day.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:



I can buy one of them at my local army surplus store can't I?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hopefully the number of likes to dislikes to the OP'S post is a reflection of the outcome.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There's a wise proverb which says, 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer still'
Now given that at some stage we have been at war with most European countries,and I don't think that they like us in most European countries, I'm voting in( as much as I would like to vote out)

In reply to Dave the Rave:

But the majority of our friends are in Europe.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

What if we remain and then the EU force some massive banking reforms or massive financial transaction taxes which decimate our economy? It's no secret that the EU want to introduce such a thing, so I'm surprised that more bankers aren't coming out in favour of Brexit. That €350M/week figure would look like small change if this came into force and the whole financial sector decided to up sticks and move.

It's funny how the introduction of this has been pushed back to after the referendum, when it was initially supposed to have been introduced in January of this year.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


Who would you consider our friends? Perhaps the Dutch and that's it for me.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

I'd consider the whole of Europe to be our friends, including non EU countries. Other friends could be Commonwealth countries and the USA/Canada and some other countries in SA, Asia, Australasia and Africa. Some of these are more friendly and welcome as friends than others.

In reply to seankenny:


I keep hearing this argument. How is driving wages down, and rent up, better for our economy? British people on benefits can't get off them, because they can't earn enough to run a household. The immigrants that are here short term, living 10 adults to a property, can afford to work for less. They're sending money home, not spending it here, strengthening our economy.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like the only people that are benefitting from the low wages are the ones that own the companies, as the wage bill is lower.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

How are immigrants driving wages down? We have a law that specifies the minimum anyone can be paid, £7.20 per hour, since you ask, and that is significantly higher that it was just a few years ago.

If wages are below that then it is not a problem of immigration, it is a problem of law enforcement.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The Remain camp try to scare us (with some justification) The Leave camp basically make stuff up (with no justification) So on that basis.....

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Have you tried to live on the minimum wage? Unfortunately it doesn't go up in line with inflation, and then there's the rapidly increasing rent prices.
Also, a lot of these low paid jobs are now on Zero hours contracts, so yes, they might be getting minimum wage, but not the full 40 hours.
I'm not on minimum wage, but I'm not on a high wage either. I tell you now, I could not survive on the minimum wage!

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Some quick replies with no links because I'm on my phone and it's late.

Immigration effect of lowering wages on bottom 10% of earners only and even then, those are dwarfed by the effects of tax and benefit changes.

Rent driven up by a bunch of reasons - mainly cheap loans and restrictive planning laws. There's a massive scarcity of homes in the places people want to live.

The majority of EU immigrants don't do the kind of manual labour you suggest. In fact, they tend to be more highly qualified than average, and more highly qualified than the average immigrant in other countries.

British citizens on benefits: the cliche of people languishing on the dole for years not working is out of date. Lots of ppl on in-work benefits and cycling through a succession of short term jobs. Problems here due to low skill levels, poor productivity etc rather than immigrants.

Remittances: sure, but strengthening the economies of Eastern Europe means eventually a greater market for the high end goods and services the UK produces. Plus I doubt remittance flows within Europe are that huge.

People sleeping ten to a room. Councils should be dealing with this, eg with stricter rules on shared houses. Some in London already do. This is enforceable if we have the will.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>> I'm scared. We all should be. This isn't funny.

You're bloody right to be scared, mate. Patrick Minford, the main economist in the brexit camp, proposes that we not only leave the single market but that we remove all import tariffs. This would, he accepts, mean the elimination of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality. But, he says, it is a price worth paying. The elimination of UK manufacturing? Holy shit! This will be worse than an asteroid strike!

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/05/27/how-do-economists-for-brex...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm shitting myself now. Just read that Gove can't guarantee that no one will lose their jobs after brexit. At least he's honest.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jun/03/eu-referendum-mic...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There's a photo doing the rounds on facebook which shows someone holding a placard saying "I'm voting remain because I don't want to be left alone on a small island with the Tories".

Amen to that. A compelling argument.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:




I don't think so. It's perfectly possible to be a Tory and to consider Brexit a crazy, dangerous and half-baked delusion which has got a tight hold on a lot of people who don't seem to care about the damage they will cause. In fact, I'd like it if there were *more* such Tories!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

In simplest terms the EU seems to be a basic form of communism. The powerful countries lose and the weak countries gain, trying to level the playing field. As one of the top economies why would we ever want to be part of that?

In reply to radddogg:

I think you need to refresh your memory re. the meaning of communism.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm paraphrasing I know

In reply to radddogg:


The EU's policy of convergence is to assist poor countries reach the EU's average GDP per capita. Everyone wins as the richer countries gain markets in those countries and stability is improved on their borders. You shouldn't see economics as a playing field in which some gain and some lose. Sometimes everyone can gain.

In reply to radddogg:


I don't have an issue with the idea, in fact I'm all for it! Unfortunately, as far as I can see, it doesn't work! The poorer countries of Southern Europe are poorer now than they've ever been. The only way it CAN work, is to have one big superstate with one currency and one budget for the entire state. Nobody is going to sign up for that, so it will always be a failing/failed experiment. The fact is, the people with the wealth, don't want to share it!

In reply to ScottTalbot:


Do you have any evidence to support that? Seems to me that, Greek debt aside, countries like Portugal and Spain enjoy a standard of living very much higher than they did decades ago.

In reply to Pekkie:

The EU spends roughly 40% of its budget on the CAP and roughly 30% on its Regional Budget (the regional budget is aimed at convergence).

The main beneficiaries of CAP appear to be France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the UK (in that order).

I could also argue that the main beneficiaries of the CAP in each individual countries are some of the richest landowners.

Reform of CAP has been talked about for decades and whilst there has been some minor reforms the overall structure and payments remain the same.

Whilst 'convergence' is a good aim, do you think the EU is tackling the issue in the best way?

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Do you know what? Just like any other political institution the EU isn't perfect ... it needs reform, it needs to evolve. But it has, and it will.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't disagree. I only disagree on how quickly that reform can be achieved and the best method of quickening up the snails pace of the EU. I am expecting a remain vote so I'm expecting the slow pace of change to continue. What this results in for the disenfranchised is anybody's guess.

In reply to L'Eeyore:




I certainly don't. The CAP was set up in order to feed a starving Europe after the war but obviously things are different now and there is a lot of resistance to change from French farmers. One piece of stupidity is giving farmers incentives to remove 'scrub' ie wildlife habitats. Nevertheless I believe that the EU's regional policy is exactly what is needed - with all the problems that have been pointed out on here. I will give you one example - Merseyside.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Here's an example of convergence at work.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-european-union-ever...

In reply to Pekkie:

I'm certainly not arguing that the EU does no good, they do.

If I had my way I'd scrap the CAP and put the funds into the Regional Budget (and farmers would be welcome to apply for grants). It is all a bit more complex than that though. It's not just the French farmers who are providing resistance to change.

In reply to Pekkie:

2 Billion Euros since Liverpool started receiving EU (or as Jim C has already pointed out elsewhere, OUR money) funding.
I wonder how much the UK has paid into the EU in the last 26 years?

In reply to Lusk:

Is it really quite that simple tho?

In reply to Lusk:



Of course the UK has paid more than £2 billion into the EU in that time. But EU spending hasn't just benefitted Liverpool by £2 billion - what about Scotland, Wales, Cornwall - indeed every less affluent part of the UK. And all the other things EU money is spent on like support for scientific research and, yes, the CAP. And the Brexiteers claim they will spend the windfall from not contributing to the EU not just on these things but on the NHS, on subsidising our uncompetitive steel industry, on house building and on just about every public good you can imagine, spending it twice, three times, even ten times over to persuade the gullible that we would be better off out. I'd guess that Boris, Gove and company would actually spend it on tax cuts for the rich. I didn't see them voting against these when the current government brought them in.

Martin

In reply to seankenny:

re: "The verdict on UKC seem to be about 60/40 remain/leave, or so it feels to me. I noticed a poll on the MSE website earlier which has almost the exact opposite, with many more people wanting to leave"


How are you concluding that the audience here is 'better educated' than that on the MSE website? Just because the majority apparently agree with you on this particular issue?

As far as the EU referendum goes, there are well-educated and thoughtful people on both sides.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Saw a headline in some rag today which essentially said "dead children will appear on our beaches". Don't know if it was Leave or Remain.

The leave crowd are not averse to scaremongering: "stay in, and 700 miilion Turks will arrive every day, claiming benefits".

I may have exaggerated a little. But hasn't everyone...?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Being middle class and well educated is a strong indicator of voting Remain. There's a reason the most pro-EU town in England is Cambridge...

Also the climbing world tends to be pretty middle class as general rule. Not to say that there aren't smart, middle class Brexit supporters, but since when hasn't a segment of the middle class been idealistic dreamers with a casual disdain for the downsides of their passions?

In reply to Lusk:



You just can't please some people. If thousands of jobs are created in Merseyside (not Liverpool) that means that they pay their way through rates & taxes. It's win-win in my book. In moral as well as economic terms. What would your policy be for dealing with poorer regions?

In reply to Pekkie:


You mean the rich countries lend money, on nice rates to the poor countries, the poor countries then buy goods from companies based or owned in the rich countries. Win win for the likes of Germany. Lose lose for Greece etc..

In reply to Pekkie:


You make it sound like the eu is financially fantastic , every country is given more money than they pay in? Year after year? How does that work?

In reply to summo:

Over time by expanding the overall economy so wins.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I spent some time earlier today trying to find someone I had a shred of respect for who has endorsed the leave campaign. I failed. Well educated yes. Thoughtful (about anything other than their own self interest and/or hatred of anything foreign) no. I'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger shower of massive c*nts of i tried.

In reply to victim of mathematics:


Are you thinking only about public figures? (I agree that the leading lights on the official 'Leave' side are an unattractive bunch.) However, I myself have well-educated, thoughtful friends in both camps - and I am enjoying discussing the issue with them all.

Your characterization of people on the 'Leave' side being concerned with '[nothing] other than their own self interest and/or hatred of anything foreign' is absurd, by the way: there are good internationalist arguments against the EU. Consider what's happening in Greece, for a start.

In reply to summo:


No, the principle of convergence is based on giving financial assistance to poorer regions - defined by GDP per head - so that they reach the EU average. There are some poor regions in the richest countries. It's not a zero sum game. Helping poor regions to develop provides investment opportunities and furthers stability. It makes you feel good about yourself. Be positive rather than xenophobic/anally retentive.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Good internationalist arguments? Such as? I remember when Greece joined the Euro there were all sorts of articles in the serious press saying that it would end in tears because of Greece's debt and falsifying of statistics. So it was a mistake. That doesn't mean that the concept of the EU is wrong.

In reply to Pekkie:


Plenty of material on the web, if you care to search and read. E.g. http://isj.org.uk/the-internationalist-case-against-the-european-union/

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Sorry, I misunderstood. I checked the link. By 'good internationalist arguments' you mean Trotskyist.

In reply to Pekkie:


No, I don't.

Did you read the article? Or merely dismiss it owing to its association? It seems a serious enough and well-referenced piece to me: what in detail do you take issue with?

In any event, there is plenty more for you to read if you are interested - just look around. Another example would be http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leavi...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There's a lot of scary stuff going on at the moment. Comical demagogues expressing what everybody thinks but are too scared to say etc.
We've seen this before and it leads to no good. Trump even has the same ludicrous mannerisms as Mussolini.
Boris, Farage, Gove all appealing to the basest interests of "the people"; cloaking their lies in the respectable sounding language of democracy. Does anyone seriously trust them? Look at how Gove behaved as Education Secretary; a self important tyrant who walked away leaving our schools in chaos.
The EU received the Nobel Peace Prize for a very good reason: it is one of the noblest of humanity's efforts to secure lasting peace. Wake up people. For God's sake don't let these lunatics wreck it.

In reply to MG:


at what point will the overall economy expand enough for Greece to reach the EU average? Although if they allow other even weaker countries to join, the average lowers, is that what you mean by expanding, in size, but not in standards?

In reply to Pekkie:


so in reality the UK will always now put in more money that it receives, as it's above the average. It could do as Norway does and as part of it's EU agreement, pays it's money direct into countries regional development funds. It does not fund brussels and allow them to decide what the money is spent it.


The UK can help it's own and overseas poor regions without the EU. Look at it's overseas aid budget, it dwarfs most of the world already. I am positive we can help others and are far xenophobic, so you don't need to throw that word in to try and win an argument.

The UK is in a position, financially and through its influence on the various Gs, UN etc.. to help any country, it doesn't need to keep hundreds of EMPs on the gravy train in Brussels at the same time to do it.

If you can't argue or debate without targetting the person, you are resorting to child mode, so won't bother anymore.

In reply to Pekkie:


no, it means the EU is led by a bunch of incompetents, who will push forward with their dream of EU control and power, regardless of the current or future conditions in the countries they wish to control. Greece was and is expendable to the EU, the UK isn't hence the fear campaign and threats of 'punishment' if it leaves.

In reply to Pete Pozman:



nope, it was because the Norwegian committee is a joke, Obama got it for doing nothing. Some weapons inspectors.... they had run out of people or groups to award it to. There is a standing joke in Sweden, that Sweden should take back control of the peace prize from the Norwegians.

Peace in Europe is only short term, if you force 28 nations together, too quickly, in too many different ways (financially, trade, immigration...) literally within a generation, you can often store up problems for the future. So I wouldn't go celebrating too early.

In reply to summo:

You're seeing it as a zero sum which it isn't. Spain, for example, has received a lot of money over the years but as a result has a much larger economy with which we trade with which will more than make up for the cost. Even with Greece we are probably better off supporting it than having a failed European state to deal with.

In reply to summo:

I'm not celebrating I'm crapping myself.

In reply to summo:

I'm not celebrating I'm crapping myself.

In reply to summo:

You keep saying the EU is "doomed" and that it's somehow going to fail: what exactly do you envisage?

Also, I hope that you see the irony is complaining about unscrupulous politicians scheming to get themselves more power, whilst voting for something that would probably put Boris Johnson in power...

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Good. That would be a very strange thing to celebrate!

In reply to MG:

you mean the famous Spanish airports, http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-wasted-money-on-new-airports-say-auditors...
or ghost airports as they are known, spain isn't alone, I think Greece and Poland have some EU funded ghost airports too. All the EU funding into spain clearly hasn't helped their youth unemployment prospects either.

If Greece was none EU, but chose to run it's economy the way it did and it failed, whose fault is it other than the Greeks? Why would anyone have to save them, from themselves?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


fear not, it's hardly the end of the world, life may change a little, but in 10 or 20 years I think it would be the best move the UK could make. Other countries will be jealous of the UK's foresight.

In reply to NottsRich:


Actually it isn't even close to that. Of the 3500 surveys we have had return, the result is very different to the figures you quote above. I will publish them in a week or two, once we close the survey.

Alan

In reply to seankenny:

no, you keep saying doomed, I say it does not work, it is too many different factors, forcing too many countries together in too short a time span. If you did trade agreements for a generation, then maybe CAP for another, then perhaps currency, then legal and migration, over a 100 years you might get progressive changes in society and in their individual economies to make true intergration work. Instead they've tried to do every in a decade or two, it's not working.

What do I envisage, an eventual Greek default or a minor recession will kill the Euro, It's squeezed with no where else to go now, economies within will fail (starting with the PIIGS) and their allegiance to bank roll the Eu will end, as local priorities take over. Germany relies on the rest of the EU buying it's goods, so it won't be able to hold it together either. The French will do what they do best, block a few roads or ports and complain, as their country slides down the pan.


But you can vote Boris in or out, as he has been. What about Juncker or the other commissioners? I bet without google you can't name any of them? That's because they are just appointed with no public say so.

In reply to MG:


In some ways you are also seeing it as a zero sum. Spain has received a large amount of support from the EU but still struggles with a very high level of unemployment.

My question is: Is the help going to the right areas/people?

Spain and the UK appear to do well on Wealth Distribution across the OECD countries but do badly on Income inequalities.

My thoughts are that current income inequalities are more important as they predict a divergence of wealth distribution. The EU funding does not seem to me to address this. Happy to be proved wrong though.

I used various sources to come to my opinion, this was the simplest to understand https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Completing that survey over Sunday morning coffee this morning prompted me to come off the fence and put a decision on 'paper' for the first time. I'm at sixes and sevens about the whole thing and teeter from one side to the other and have been doing so for months now.

This morning I ticked "Leave the EU". In my mind the most important issue had become sovereignty, by leaving the EU we reclaim our democracy and this trumps all the other considerations. So with a heavy heart I ticked leave, with huge misgivings.

Walking past the duck pond two hours later I came across the worst kind of little england family, all obesity, fag smoke, swearing and high blood pressure. On one man's calf was tattooed a Union Flag, with a British Bulldog in the middle. I swear that f*cking Bulldog winked at me as I walked past.

In reply to Bobling:

I just can't see how we do.

Look at Switzerland and Norway, the two most commonly cited examples. Both are in the Schengen Area, both contribute to the EU financially, both have access to the EU free market so both are heavily governed by EU laws and regulations.

https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/


We will also still have the ECHR as protection, thats a separate issue.

The idea of complete sovereignty in the modern international world is outdated.

In reply to Bobling:


Except we probably won't as the most likely scenario is that the UK rejoins EFTA and stays subject to much EU legislation, still pays (admittedly a bit less) but has no say on decisions.

And even outside EFTA, there are real limits to sovereignty in the modern world unless we follow the example of N Korea

In reply to summo:

The thing is, you keep coming out with statements like "economies will fail" that don't even really mean anything. They're just a general expression of your gloomy feelings. The you confuse the broad trend of trying to improve the poorer regions of the EU with the more specific problems around debt in some European countries. After all, the debt is also a problem for the World Bank and IMF as well as the EU - it's a broader issue.

To top it all, you think that the solution is the one thing that economists say would make the problem worse.

In reply to Bobling:

If we have no sovereignty then how come the societies and economies of France, Getmany and the U.K. are all so different?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm voting remain because I wouldn't trust a British Government as far as I could kick it!!

Growing up in a place like Liverpool through the 80's and 90's confirms to me why we need the EU. Anyone who thinks leave the EU and the UK government will divert vast sums of money in to regeneration projects and the like is delusional!!

In reply to L'Eeyore:


Because the EU forced extremely counter productive fiscal policy on Spain, and because the euro hasn't devalued as much as the peso would have.

The money that countries have got following the financial crisis has mostly gone on bailing out the EU's own banks. Certainly for Greece, assume it's true for Spain too.

In reply to seankenny:


So if we had, say, entirely given away all power to the EU whenever it was we joined, you would expect France, Germany and the UK to be dead similar?

In reply to Bobling:

We still have our sovereignty. You can tell because we're having a referendum on whether to stick with the international agreement that is being part of the EU. Given that if we do leave, we'll very likely sign up to a very similar agreement, and the consequences of not signing up to the similar agreement would be quite bad, you're probably best voting to stay.

In reply to seankenny:


The ECB is still trying to kick start the euro with QE. Greece continually has it's debt rolled over with more debt to cover the interest payments, it isn't get it's head above water, it's still storing up problems. Many other countries haven't fixed their finances, what do you think will happen on the next down turn? There is practically no growth in Europe, especially when you compare Euro and none Euro nations.

The debt problems around Europe are mainly due to the Euro and the strength of Northern European Euro nations, countries don't have control of their own currency, they can't borrow, set interest rates... suitable to their own economy. The Euro is currently a race to the bottom.


The EU isn't going to last without reform. I think it is better the UK goes independent now under it's own steam, rather than wait a decade or less for a recession and be forced to exit on collapse anyway. The UK leaving might be a wake up call and actually save the EU, if it reforms.

In reply to Alan M:


When you say this what you are actually saying is either: 1) I don't believe in democracy (because it doesn't always agree with me) or 2) I don't believe in the UK as a self governing nation State.

You might down the line, of course, be faced with another conundrum if the entity which you prefer to the UK (ie. the EU) chooses, democratically or not, to act against your wishes.

In reply to Pekkie:

It does in it's current state. It is simply not possible to have a single currency and monetary regime across such diverse group of nations and economies. Either there has to be fiscal and political union and a permanent transfer system of funding from the North the the South and East (which, witness Italy's North and South, becomes corrupting and destructive), or there has to be a looser union.
Greece is but a stark example of the contradictions of the current system.

On way or other, for better or worse, the EU will have to change radically in the next decade.

When "remainers" say that brexiters are "taking a risk" and not explaining how the UK will look outside they are correct. But they also neglect to notice that the same is true of staying inside.

In reply to Postmanpat:



He's right. If it wasn't for the ECHR we'd never have the truth over Hillsborough.. (not that leaving the EU means we leave the ECHR)

But the UK also has unelected elements which are involved in our governance. I really don't think the EU is undemocratic.

In reply to Postmanpat:




I totally agree with you here, I just think voting remain and reforming from the inside is better, cheaper and less risky than leaving, hoping for the break of up of the and forming another union.. because we will. In some form or other we will rejoin the union anyway, like Switzerland have, they are basically in apart from in name. In many ways they are more integrated in the EU than we are.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'When "remainers" say that brexiters are "taking a risk" and not explaining how the UK will look outside they are correct'

We got on all right before we joined the Common Market, or whatever it was called at the time. The Bremainers are simply engaging in unjustified scare talk.

In reply to John2:
'


We didn't, really. And anyway, that was a different age.

In reply to John2:


Arguably not being in the common market and thus being protected from European imports and benefitting from exports to the Commonwealth contributed to the lack of competitiveness of British industry and it's downfall.

But, regardless, of that, fairly obviously the UK would be entering something of an unknown scenario by leaving the EU now. However, the problems referred to above would no longer be relevant.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What buffoonery is this Pat? We're having a ruddy referendum on it.

In reply to John2:



But we didn't. Where did you get this idea? Economic growth blossomed after joining the EU. There is plenty to distrust about the EU but its benefits for our economy are impossible to ignore if you do your research.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Well, increasingly I feel it is better to keep a distance, let the cards fall as the will, and then review when the whole EU gets fundamentally recreated. I don't think we have the ability to change the views of the entrenched Euro-elites. Only a crisis will do that.
But I willingly admit it is a far from perfect "solution"..

In reply to Donald82:


Read what he wrote and read what I wrote.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That sounds simultaneously optimistic and complacent to me. Do you really think the OPs sketch is completely unlikely, and that staying could possibly lead to anything so cataclysmic? Given how the EU looked 10and 20years ago, it seems to me serious changes are possible. Furthermore we are outside the Euro, so protected from its shortcomings.

In reply to MG:



Well, we sort of did. But times change and saying "we got on ok before we joined the eu" is a bit like saying "we got on ok before we joined nato". History happens.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well de Gaulle didn't like us much and the economy was rubbish.

In reply to MG:


Apart from possibly the French I don't think most European countries will see it as in their interests to make it impossible for the UK to function outside the EU. I don't see why they wouldn't agree to cooperate on most international issues (eg. security, climate change, the ME, health, crime) in the same way that the UK cooperates with places like Canada or the US.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pat my man, I read what you both wrote before I posted. If people want to have Brussels constrain Westminster that's their democratic choice.

In reply to MG:

I know, but that's a small period of time. You could argue that at times we have done OK before we joined the UK. But, as I said, times have changed and it's silly to suggest we can turn the clock back.

In reply to Donald82:

Yes, so he has decided 1)He doesn't trust in British democracy when he disagrees with it. 2) He has therefore taken option 2 and doesn't believe in the UK as a self governing State.

It's really not hard you know.

In reply to Postmanpat:



I think it is highly unlikely it will be recreated..

It will modify, it won't totally separate. It is almost unthinkable for Benelux, France and Germany to separate.. and probably the same for most central and even some of the southern european countries.

By being outside we have no influence and I've not heard anyone say that we will not want access into the main european market and that will only be done like Norway and Switzerland have done by paying in and accepting the EU demands and not cherry picking.

If Norway and the Swiss were unable to opt for closed borders how can the UK think it can?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

When I say "recreated" I don't mean necessarily with the same constituent parts or same rules and institutions. I agree the "northern core" can probably function as a federal State or something similar if it wants to but how that coexists with other parts is very unclear.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not at all PatMan. The fact that we are choosing, means that we are both self governing and democratic. I note, also, you've changed from saying he"doesn't believe in democracy" to "doesn't trust Brittish democracy" which is quite different. (Tut, tut - lets try to debate honestly here.) I would say he doesn't trust the current government, and perhaps others, which is a different thing again. Anyway, your indiscretions aside, the main point is this. Democracy comes in many different and at times conflicting forms, and always involves constraints on elected officials which are broadly agreed upon at some stage by directly or indirectly by democratic means. To suggest that voting for certain constraints (on partisan grounds or not) is not to believe in democracy is just silly buffoonery. Such a vote is, in fact, the exercise of democracy. I'm sure with time to reflect on this you'll come to see this rather obvious truth.

For the record, I personally, don't trust Brittish democracy precisely because it doesn't agree with me. I do believe in democracy though, and so excersise my right vote to leave the UK and stay in the EU.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Arguably not being in the common market and thus being protected from European imports and benefitting from exports to the Commonwealth contributed to the lack of competitiveness of British industry and it's downfall'

Arguably. The UK used to have a great manufacturing base. Post WW2 the Germans overtook us to some extent because they were not allowed to maintain a standing army and therefore had more resources to pump into supporting their manufacturers (I'm not claiming that this is the whole of the story). Stories of British manufacturers becoming complacent are legion. But I remain to be convinced that it was entry to the EU that suddenly made us competitive again - our most prolific car manufacturers these days are owned by the Japanese, while the most prestigious are owned by the Germans.

When I look back to what entry to the Common Market meant for an ordinary British family, I remember the price of food rocketing overnight because we were no longer allowed to import dairy products and lamb from New Zealand, but had to pay substantially more for Kerrygold products from Ireland. Let's not mention VAT.

'the UK would be entering something of an unknown scenario by leaving the EU '

The scenario would be unknown. Unknown things are scary for people who like the status quo. That does not mean that unknown things are bad.

The greatest problem with the Brexit campaign is its inability to present a unified picture of what post-Brexit life would be like.

In reply to Donald82:


Christ, you're not bloody Rom in disguise are ?? Did you not notice the "either", "or", in my post which implicitly allows for the defence that he believes in deomcracy, but just not British democracy. If you believe in democracy but not the outcome of it within the British State then you do don't believe in the self governing British State ie.British f*cking democracy. Keep up at the back!!!!

You are actually making pretty much precisely my point. Neither you nor him believe in Britain as a self governing State because you disagree with the outcome of its democratic will.

It is, of course, a ridiculous position. In the 1975 referendum it was the Bennite left which were strongly against joining the EU because they viewed it as a "capitalist conspiracy." Now the equivalent left wants to stay in becaue they see it as a defence against neoliberalism ("a capitalist conspiracy"). Where does this leave the left if the EU swings further toward "neoliberalism"?

In reply to John2:


And it's failure to demand that the "remainers" do the same.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Do you not think that maybe the leave campaign should try to sell us some sort of vision of what a post eu UK would look like if they want us to vote for it?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pat you big endearing ninny. Allow me to clarify.

>"When you say this what you are actually saying is either: 1) I don't believe in democracy (because it doesn't always agree with me) or 2) I don't believe in the UK as a self governing nation State."

1. Voting in a refrendum is part of democracy, as is imposing constrainst on elected offials whether in a partisan manner or not. 2. Despite being part of the EU and, while we remain so, having to accept EU law we are still a self governing nation. We can leave when we want and the majority of decisions are made in our parliament.

Democracy is not limited to a FPTP vote and then letting whoever's in get on with it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, and they have, but it would be silly to expect that the brexiters could or should have a united and coherent vision and dishonest of them to pretend that they have.

In reply to Donald82:



Yawn,I think you are Rom.Essentially what you are saying is that because the electorate doesn't agree with me I want to change the electorate, in this case by deferring to the EU electorate.

The idea that because ultimately the UK can reserve the right to leave the EU it is preserving British democracy, is a hell of a lot sillier and far fetched than thinking that the British FPTP etc system for all its myriad flaws is nevertheless democratic.

You argue that "the majority of decisions are made in our parliament" but want to remain because you want key decisions not to be made in our parliament. And you call that democratic!! Doh!

Obviously, if the UK electorate votes in a referendum to leave, then that is the democratic will.That is not at issue. It is the democratic will to overide British democracy. If, to take an extreme example, we had a referendum to appoint a dictator for life, would you be arguing that we are preserving British democracy?

The invidious thing about your position is not that you don't believe in British democracy, or even that you resent its outcomes, but that you are prepared to sacrifice it purely on the grounds that it doesn't satisfy your short term interests.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, they haven't. Would we be part of the single market? Would we allow free movement of people, goods, service, finance?


Whether or not I expect coherence, I haven't seen any yet.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



As I said, there shouldn't and can't be.

There are lots of versions of what access to the EU market might be, how our relationships with the rest of the world might be etc.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So.. er... It is the democratic will of the British people to override British democracy? You see your problem here. We, the Brittish people, vote to have the country run as we choose.


Depends how old they were.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


All of the details of things like that will be the subject of negotiations - as well as, perhaps, an electoral mandate in the UK. Nobody can give you the kind of detail you're asking for; if anybody does, they're just making things up.

In reply to Donald82:


To abandon British democracy. So you accept my point. Good, that's cleared up then.


Rolls eyes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You said they have! Just up there ^, now you're saying there's no vision. Make your mind up.
I know there are lots of versions of what we could end up with, but I'm waiting for Bojo to sell us his view.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Johnson is a proven liar - so don't believe anything he says on this, or anything else.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Equally remain campaigners seem reticent when asked what will the EU look like in 5 - 10 years time? For me a vote for remain is not a vote for the existing status quo, it is for more economic and political integration, but how much? And if you believe that Cameron's negotiated opt outs carry any binding force then I have some magic beans to sell.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


IDS, Gove, Farage, anyone, sell me a positive plan for out.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


Leave. Leave your marriage, your family, your job, sell your house, you don't know what tomorrow will bring.

In reply to Cú Chullain:


That is not true, a vote for remain won't necessarily cause more integration.
More integration could happen only by treaty change, which would have to then be ratified by the parliament we would have put in power.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Clearly the thrust of the EU is for more integration. That is not a secret, and indeed is the only way in which, for example, the single currency can work.

If the UK votes to remain in the EU then that is what we are intellectually signing up for: we cannot continue to be a 'reluctant' member of the organization.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Or blocked by another country that has a veto - democracy in action.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not sure how having a bit more constraint on the house of commons while keeping most decsions and maintaining the choice to change is an abandonment of British democracy. Think of it this way. 35% of people vote to have the Tories in. If we stay in the EU, over 50% people will have voted to do so. And I'm fairly sure the majority of our elected representatives would like to stay in too.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't know what you're expecting. The fundamental answer is that the UK would be acting under direct local self-determination (at least so far as our electoral system allows that), and that we would negotiate with the EU for what we (and they) need and want. (*)

Would the end result be better for you or me personally - who knows? Would the intellectual/ideological position be better for you?: that's a straight question which only you can answer - and which goes to the heart of the debate.

'IDS, Gove, Farage' - all three could no doubt *promise* you anything. Does that matter?

(* Note, however, Varoufakis's warning: the EU mightn't exist should the UK decide to leave.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I'm not asking for promises, I asked for a plan. You seem to view that as an unreasonable request. Here's another - In the event of brexit can you tell me what the UK should change that the eu is preventing the UK from doing currently?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Yes. It matters because most people in our democracy care more about whether the end result is better for them and other people, than they do about the principled arguments about the extent to which we are under 'direct local self control'. Which is the principled thing to care about btw. And it matters because, while the future is of course uncertain, it's not like a totally random thing where we have no idea what will happen. People deserve to be properly informed.

In reply to Donald82:

No only 50% of the people who bother to vote.

In reply to Glug:

sure. same goes for the tories 35%.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Your refusal to address my description of the impact of the EU on the average consumer suggests that you are too young and too inexperienced in the ways of the world to understand what I am talking about.

And it's its, not it's.

In reply to Donald82:

What I don't understand is how people can distrust UK politicians but think that EU politicians are great, to me they all seem to be the same.

In reply to Glug:

I don't understand why you think anyone thinks EU politicians are great.

In reply to seankenny:

I can tell you how I think it will fail. It will expand, and include more countries.

However, it will not gain any countries who are economically stable.

Some of the already member countries, like Italy, Spain, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, will also continue to have economic problems, and will result in a net drain of the economy of the EU.

Once this starts it will rapidly increase

At some point the ability of the economically stable countries, Germany, the UK, etc to continuously pay into the bottomless pot will end.

In reply to John2:


Haha, brilliant, I wish! We can discuss for ever the pros and cons of not being founder members of the EU (hence the use of the word "arguably". It's an interesting historical issue but it's frankly not very relevant to the current debate. The world has changed.

Thanks for pointing out what was a typo but I can assure you I make far more egregious real errors in punctuation which you can pick on if that is your want.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



I disagree. The EU has very much moved into the direction of having different levels of integration.
This principle is pretty much well entrenched in practice and will be reinforced by Cameron's deal.

In reply to Postmanpat:



I don't believe in democracy?? I don't believe in the UK as a self governing nation state??? Who's post have you been reading????? because it is certainly not mine. You can't go adding your own meaning to things you know.

I support democracy and will accept any decision the UK makes however I am voting in!! If the majority votes out well so be it.

I am simply comfortable being a British Citizen and Britain being part of the EU. My distrust of UK governments is from growing up in Liverpool in the 80's and 90's. Just compare the EU response to regeneration compared to the UK government response of the time and to this date. For a more modern example look at Hull!!!

In reply to L'Eeyore:


Well yes pretty much

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No, I think that's entirely reasonable. The plan would be to negotiate for the terms which we decide we want. Whether we get those - whatever they are - is another question.


Presumably control of immigration is one thing: it's certainly gained traction in the debate.

In reply to Donald82:


I'm not sure which of those you're describing as the 'principled thing'!


Yes of course. But we can't even be sure which government would be negotiating on our behalf: a lot might happen in the event of a 'leave' vote.

Since Gove was mentioned above, he has already given us his 'vision' in the result of a 'leave': that's a matter of record. I think he is an honest man but, whether or not things would work out as he, presented, who knows?

In reply to Glug:

As I mentioned not trusting a UK government it is not about trusting EU politicians it's about EU directives raising standards. Take for example the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive and compare the current UK interpretation and watering down of the regulatory response and control to that of say Germany or The Netherlands. As an example there is a business I audit twice every year for emission limits, a few years ago the emissions being recorded were classed as a fail now because of current UK guidance and the increasing of the averaging time the same emissions are now considered a pass!! In my opinion a post EU UK will probably see standards drop even further...barrier to business and all that!!


Not just IPPC compare the current UK response to noise assessment under the planning regime or odour regulation compared to Germany or The Netherlands or even outside of the EU Japan or Canada specifically Ontario the only other wealthy/developed country with dodgy odour control regulation/regulatory framework as the UK is probably New Zealand.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"We can discuss for ever the pros and cons of not being founder members of the EU (hence the use of the word "arguably". It's an interesting historical issue but it's frankly not very relevant to the current debate. The world has changed."

So how about the power of the UN's founding members? Should they give up that power?

In reply to Postmanpat:

us real errors in punctuation which you can pick on if that is your want.

Tell me that was deliberate!

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Doing what's good for people.


Haha!

In reply to Donald82:


I think you're on dodgy ground if you'd prefer politicians who would 'do what's good for people' rather than those would implement decisions arrived at by direct local democracy.


For what it's worth I respect Gove - which is *not* the same thing as agreeing with anything he says, either on this matter or on any other. But maybe I've been had? If you have evidence that he's a liar, then please let us know.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


What do "we" want? As far as I can make out, Gove doesn't want to be in the single market, Bojo the clown does want to be in the single market. Should we have a referendum? What price would we be prepared to pay? Show me a plan.


Immigration from within the eu presumably as we already control the external immigration? And what if the price for free trade with the eu is free movement of people? How are we going to keep out the foreigners then?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I mean the principled way to vote.


He's been going around quoting £350million a week that we spend on the EU, without mentioning the rebate we get or the money that we get back, for example, to our universities. A very dishonest use of statistics. I do believe he also said tax credits wouldn't be cut before the last election.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


If you want a comprehensive plan which will be completely delivered, then you won't get it. If you would only vote 'leave' were you in receipt of such a plan, then you must vote 'remain.'


As has been pointed out already, it *might* be that, in the negotiations following a 'leave' vote, the UK might be asked to accept free movement of people as a condition for joining the single market. We could say 'yes' or 'no' to that. I imagine the suggestion of a 'yes' to that request could force an election here: many people would regard it as a gross betrayal.

(As for me: I don't like the underlying marketization principles of the EU in any case, so I take a different view.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I want a detailed enough plan to know whether leave intend for us to remain in the single market. As it is the only plan is "vote out, it'll be grand".


But we don't know whether the plan is to remain in the single market. Because there is no plan - other than a general dislike of foreigners.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


In the event of a 'leave' vote, there will be *two years* of negotations. Realpolitik will apply - deals need to be done, after all - but *nobody* can tell you what the detailed outcome will be. (Nor can we even be sure which UK government and/or representatives would be doing the deal.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:


And is the plan to negotiate to remain in the single market?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


The problem is, they can't even tell us what the aims of the negotiations should be. They have no coherent plan for what comes next, no red lines they've said they won't cross, etc. Terrible given they've had decades to think about it.

The point about remain being a risk is rather facile. After all, we would still have the option of leaving (or even trying to help fix it), whereas to leave commits us with no going back - and very little say in what happens in the EU after, even tho problems there will still affect us. To casually wish for the end of the EU seems to me a deeply irresponsible position, and giving power to people who are blasé about the human cost of such destruction is foolish.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: The landscape of the UK following a post Brexit vote will have changed fundamentally. Scotland will vote massively against being dragged out of the EU. But unfortunately may be outnumbered and out weighed by the rise of English nationalism, xenophobia and a right wing media cabal that has wilfully disregarded the economic, social and strategic impact of jeopardising EU relationships/markets. If that's the case then Scotland should waste no time in building a consensus for a new referendum that makes sure we aren't governed by the kind of nasty "crackpot" far right government that follows such a vote.

In reply to alastairmac:


It'll be very interesting to see how the Scottish vote compares to that of the rest of the UK. What you've written certainly describes the accepted wisdom - we'll soon find out whether or not it's true.

What I still struggle with is why - if the central question of principle is one of self-determination - the Scots would favour leaving the UK, but remaining in (or indeed, perhaps, joining) the EU.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


In the EU, the UK retains its right to decide its own future via its own parliament (as we're seeing just now). It also has its own military and foreign policy, its own embassies, its own seats on international organisations and so on - in short, it is a proper country, which can and does sign up to agreements and unions with others, and can renegotiate or leave them if it wants to.

In the UK, Scotland might be able to organise its own referendum, but it would only be legally binding if the UK parliament said it was. The UK parliament lends power to Scotland, and can (in theory, at least) take it back whenever it wants. Scotland cannot have its own military or foreign policy, or embassies, and can't join international organisations as a country, because it isn't a proper one - it's ultimately just a region of the UK, albeit one with a significant degree of autonomy in some matters.

The two unions are completely different things.


The UK already has self-determination - it just chooses to work closely with other countries, with treaties and agreements lending some of its power to the union as long as it remains a member.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Isn't that a remake of "Carry on Camping" staring, John Malkovich and Johnny Depp with Scarlett Johansson taking Barbara Windsor's role.

This just about sums it up for me

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156545876930538&set=a.10150763289...

In reply to skog:


Not quite, it lost it's seat on the World Trade organisation and is represented by the EU now.

How long before the EU wants to represent all the nations collectively at the UN, G whatever and other organisations?

In reply to summo:


How likely is it that the member states would let this happen?

Also, this appears to be one of the things Cameron actually did manage to address:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

In reply to skog:


Happened once already with WTO?


But it doesn't directly say all member nations will be able to keep their respective seats on various councils, it's down to interpretation?

In reply to summo:


I think it's as clear as it can be without it actually being written formally in treaties yet.

That will take time, but I'm confident that failure to deliver it properly (following a Remain vote) would result in strong calls for another referendum.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I really don't think you understand.. There will be limited negotiation. There other non-EU countries already in the market so the EU cannot offer us better deals than they get. We will have to have open borders if we are in it. That will be non negotiable.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Because they'd have self governance and some EU governance..

In reply to Rob Parsons:

*silence from Parsons*

Never let the evidence get in the way of your gut feelings

In reply to Donald82:


On which points? There's a lot going on here - and I don't monitor the conversation full time.

In reply to skog:


The chances of the EU allowing the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world it's own individual voice at WTO again, nil?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I think it's simple. I think that most of those that believe in self determination for Scotland support the principle of independence. But also support the principle of independent countries working together for their own good and for the common good. That's particularly necessary if you're a small country that can get access to the benefits of scale available by working with larger partners or partnerships.

In reply to alastairmac:

If Brexit happens I think Scotland should wait a few years before trying to have a referendum, there is a possibility that voters will move between parties once the EU debate is settled - maybe a good or bad thing, but worth waiting a few years to see the outcome.

Polls seem to suggest at least a wait and see approach too.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
On Gove's honesty..
9:59

In reply to alastairmac:

spot on

In reply to summo:



Thats very different. We all had seats on the WTO.

With the UN we are one of the few permanent powers. It would be very different.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

What if some European army wishes to represent all eu nation on the security council in the future?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


We still do. Although the EU negotiates for member states on most issues, individual EU members can also conduct their own negotiations without recourse to EU channels.

In reply to summo:


Yay! let's just make some random shit with no bearing whatsoever in anything remotely close to reality.

In reply to summo:


Because our (the UK's, not Sweden's) army currently represents us on the security council? Is that a fact fact, or a summofact?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So you have a crystal ball do you? Every single thing you mention is pure conjecture with no evidence of any kind to support any of it.

What a load of nonsense.

In reply to Donald82:



On that, whilst the 350 million figure is defendable as a gross figure, I agree it's a misleading description. Similarly, the 'remain' economic dossier - published by the Government at our expense - was a complete fabrication. None of this kind of nonsense - from either side - is either necessary or helpful.

I can't quite consider that a personal 'lie' by Gove though; I was really making the distinction between him, and somebody like Johnson - who's twice been sacked for telling lies.

(By the way: your initial reply '*silence from Parsons*' has a slightly triumphal tone. For what it's worth, I am not trying to 'win' an argument here: who cares what I think? and who cares about what goes on in this small corner of the Internet? I am trying to have discussions, and to puzzle out the issues in what is an important question.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I thought you'd read something that didn't fit your world view and were ignoring it. Not uncommon on UKC. Ditto reinterpretation of past words "I respect Gove and think he's an honest man = he's more honest that Johnston". Seems a bit of stretch to me.

Not read the remain report, sure it overstates it case, but most economists think it'll probably costs us a bit to leave. Of course, they might be wrong but they'll make a better guess of it than most.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Why do you say the remain economic analysis was a complete fabrication? It was a forecast, yes, but that is implicit. The response from all economists that I have seen said that, as far as an economic forecast can be accurate, this one was well thought out and drawn up based on sensible calculations and assumptions.

One of the difficulties of this whole process appears to be that people want "facts", which, in this case, can only be forecasts. The people who have the expertise to produce those forecasts do so; only to be loudly decried as "elites"; "biased" and accused of falsifying the figures for their own ends (when inevitably, those analyses say that leaving would be harmful)...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I'll dig up some detailed critiques if I can - or google for the same. For a start, the forecast period was something like *20* years. *20* years - from the same economists who didn't see the crash of 2007 coming before it hit them?

Edit: check out https://liamhalligan.com/2016/04/24/pro-eu-study-straight-from-the-ministry... for a start. He dismantles the ludicrous '4300 pounds worse off' headline figure. (Of course, he is from the 'leave' side; but you won't get any critical questioning of the report from the 'remain' side, so that's where we are.)

In reply to Donald82:


Let me restate: based on his performance as a public figure since he entered politics, I respect Gove, and think he's an honest man.

I have dealt with the '350 million claim' (technically defendable; but misleading) above. If you have a serious smoking gun on Gove, let's have it: I don't like being tricked, and am always happy to have my eyes opened.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So... let's get this straight... vou agree that Gove is deliberately misleading the public, but you think that's "technically defendable" so you still think he's an honest guy. Plus you're ignoring the tax credits thing. Your eyes seem quite tightly closed to me. You probably think the Tories are a safe pair of hands with the economy too! Lolza

In reply to Sir Chasm:


The UK previously had a place at WTO, until the eu took over its representation , now it doesn't. That is a fact, in anybodys book.

In reply to tony:

No, what do you think the eu will plan to do, once UK is locked in. The eu isn't static, it will change and move forward with its plans.

Random, you really think an eu army is random, give it ten years and I expect a uniformed eu army and border force, perhaps some form of maritime patrol in the med too. They'll then wish representation on councils etc..

In reply to Donald82:


What are the exact details of 'the tax credits thing'?


A stupid thing to say. You have no idea what I think.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Not exactly a smoking gun, but I heard Gove get emotional (rare, for a Tory) about the loss of his Dad's business 'because of the EU.'

Er... his Dad's business was fish processing. And yes, it may have suffered or become non viable because of EU fish quotas. Sorry. Those fish quotas that have seen a resurgence of fishing stocks through internationally/EU agreed fish quotas, and other environmental measures.

Presumably in post-EU Engroveland businesses will be allowed to rape the environment until there's nothing left. 'The free market, don'cha know...'

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I would hope not; and there is no reason to suppose that the British are completely stupid in that regard. But there is an obvious danger of a free-for-all while post-exit negotations are being conducted, and rules/laws not yet agreed.


Marketization is precisely one philosophical argument against the EU.

Since you raise the subject of fishing, the EU's rules on throwing back over-quota 'by catches' were stupid, weren't they? And remarkably awkward to get changed.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Before the election he said there'd be no tax credit cuts, and then there were tax credit cuts.

I'm still curious about the whle honesty via technicality thing. It's an interesting position!

In reply to Donald82:


I would need to read up the exact quotes and claims you're making. If he said one thing and then was responsible for doing the reverse, of course he would be a liar.


I don't think it's that interesting: the '350 million' claim is technically correct as a gross figure. There is spinning on both sides of this argument - I don't like any of it - but I suppose it is what I have become to accept as normal back-and-forth in politics.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The difference is Gove genuinely believes in the case he is making. He is arguing honestly. Boris would argue black is white if he thought it would further his personal career.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

No it isn't, its a lie, pure and simple. We do pay £350m a week / £18bn a year to the EU.

In reply to summo:


Your little piece of scaremongering was "What if some European army wishes to represent all eu nation on the security council in the future?". But the UK isn't currently represented by the army, we send an ambassador to represent the UK (not to represent the army), and there isn't an eu army - see here for some info https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/
So I take it back, you didn't come up with any facts, or even any summofacts, just hysterical scaremongering.

In reply to The New NickB:


I think you missed a 'not.'

The 350 million figure comes from UK Treasury estimates: see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4... and divide 17,779 by 52 to get 342 million (which I assume was rounded up to 350 for effect) as the 'gross' contribution.

Those Treasury figures are instantly challengable of course - but they're there in black-and-white, for any side in this argument to quote.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


He said tax credits wouldn't be cut, when pressed he said they'd be frozen, then after the election they got cut. He wasn't directly responsible for tax credits. So either he was lied to and hasn't come out and said so. Or he knew, and he lied. Neither the actions of an honest and honourable man.

>I suppose it is what I have become to accept as normal back-and-forth in politics.

Accept dishonesty as part of politics if you like, just remember that's what it is.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


There are many statistics published by many parts of government. They can be used honestly to inform the public. Or they can be used dishonestly to mislead the public. It's laughable that you're trying to defend this :-D

In reply to Rob Parsons:


No reason to expect an environmental free for all from a country once known as the dirty man of Europe? No, no reason for that at all.

In reply to seankenny:


Is your argument that we should be in the EU to save us from ourselves? That's one way of looking at things, I suppose.

In reply to The New NickB:


You are on very shaky ground, sir. The brexit campaign (eg Gove and Boris) have accepted that the £350 million figure is inaccurate. It is a gross figure which doesn't include the rebate and what we get back. The real figure is about half the £350 million.

http://infacts.org/vote-leave-lying-saying-send-eu-350-million-week/

In reply to Rob Parsons:

As described in that report, the UK's gross post rebate contribution in 2015 is a little under £13bn. To describe the UK contribution as anything other than this is dishonest. A lie.

In reply to Pekkie:

Typo, I am very much of the opinion that the £350m figure is a lie. My view is that the actual contribution is £250m, of which we receive £100m back in CAP, structural fund etc.

In reply to The New NickB:


Further, to talk about the gross contribution without making clear we get a fair bit back is also dishonest.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


collective action problem - look it up :-D

In reply to The New NickB:


So the actual figure is about £150 million?

In reply to Pekkie:


Gross and net is a useful distinction though.

In reply to The New NickB:

Well, we've covered this one, I think.

Now, what's your view of the '4300 pounds worse off per year' figure presented by the 'remain' side?

In reply to The New NickB:


For your wage packet net is reality. A bit like running a business. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I'm glad you brought that up. Can I bill Boris or Gove - or maybe the prominent brexiteers on here? - for my £4,300? And that's just the first year. What about setting up an annual direct debit? How do I get hold of the relevant bank details? I'm serious about this.

In reply to Pekkie:

You believe the figure, then?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I know very little about where that figure has come from. I've actually been trying to ignore most of the campaign, from both sides. I'm sure it is dubious, but in my case at least, it has been much less in your face than the £350m figure.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I was joking but who knows? Economists are arguing about how big the cost to the average citizen will be. £4,000, £2,000? I want my money!

In reply to Pekkie:

Fine, just as long as you concede that *both* official sides of the argument are having fun with figures.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


The £4,300 figure is obviously fanciful. Except...Full Fact, the independent fact checking organisation, reckon that 'the direction of travel' is basically correct ie brexit will cost each and every one of us.

https://fullfact.org/europe/4300-question-would-leaving-eu-really-make-ever...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The 84 likes V 34 dislikes is quite reassuring Rob.

Wally

In reply to Pekkie:


you never did address the fact that the chair of fullfact is a Cameron pal and tory donor? I would look at the other staff, hardly unbias.

I haven't heard anyone speak for either side who doesn't have bias, as everyone has an opinion on the EU.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Scaremongering? the EU is openly and publically on a course of further intergration, the only chance the Euro has is this route. The EMPs, Juncker, Commissioners have not once said that intergration is complete. By voting for the UK to remain, you are voting to be a part of it, not a side liner like in EEA/EFTA etc..

Where the EU will go in the future is of course guesswork, just like Brexit, but the EU has merged and harmonised many things, so defence, border forces, maritime patrol would be a pretty obvious line next and one that has already been speculated on by the EU itself.

Like or not, the EU is going to change in the next decade, voting IN, isn't voting for stagnation.


unlike your Fullfact, the website with the tory donor as a chair and host of other bias people on it's board. Look them up if you don't believe me.

In reply to summo:


You know full well the UK won't integrate further without parliaments' agreement.

In reply to MG:


let's just wait and see what actually happens. The UK was not going to do many things, then GB headed off to Lisbon and signed on the line previously. The future is guesswork on both sides of the fence.

In reply to MG:


That is true and always has been.

The EU isn't much more than a bunch of democratic countries trying to work together.

Over the past decades governments of members states have gone forward quite often without the implicit consent of their population, and that is, I agree, undemocratic. But this is more of a problem with Europeans democracies themselves than a problem with the EU. If anything the EU institutions have mitigated that.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Understatement of the Year?

Trying to work together? Which along the way means sharing a legal framework, currency, borders, employment, the land & seas.... it is a full merger, not independent nations working together.

If it was just as you said, why the big fuss on the UK leaving, why would anything change, or are things a little more tightly woven than 'just working together'?

In reply to summo:




Yes, this "What if some European army wishes to represent all eu nation on the security council in the future?" is scaremongering. Not to mention grossly ignorant about how the security council functions.
But you're right, voting in isn't voting for stagnation.


So show me where they're wrong.

In reply to summo:


I did. They are supported by a variety of charitable trusts and seem to be the most impartial fact checking organisation available. They certainly pull no punches if either side in the brexit debate get their facts wrong.

https://fullfact.org/about/funding/

In reply to MG:


You (ought to) know full well that the government don't need parliament's agreement to pass over more power, Cameron can just go sign a new treaty and it's happened.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Well, you do realise the Treasury presented a range of possible outcomes for the economy - all of which suggest the economy being permanently smaller. They then took a midpoint for the overall loss to GDP and divided it up by the number of households to give a rough idea of impact. Which is all it is.

However, lots of other organisations have done similar calculations making different assumptions, and very nearly all of them come out with a smaller weaker economy after Brexit.

But you knew all this, right?

In reply to Pekkie:


they seem to be... yeah seem to be on the surface if you don't even think about it.

https://fullfact.org/about/who-we-are/

In reply to seankenny:


lots of organisation have done this, yes, many project 10 years ahead to get a possibility that person might be £Xk worse off, but they all come with a range of figures and margin of error. It just happens the 'in' campaign publish a figure that is highest and ignore the spread or the potential errors.

In reply to thomasadixon:


This is true inside or outside of the EU, though - you're talking about how the UK works, and if people want to change that they'd need to change the UK's systems.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

no one knows if they are right or wrong, they are future predictions.

I predict that in 2025 if we brexit each person could be £5k better off, or £5k worse off with margin of error +-£4500, depending on different economic events after exit.

Now each party can take those figures and present an argument that sounds like it's written in fact to match their particular argument. When the reality is the spread and error margin render them worthless, economic modelling has rarely been correct in the past 30 years. None of the crashes were predict by the big organisations saying no to Brexit, most big organisations said we should have joined the Euro or stayed in the EMF.

Other groups like the OECD are funded by the EU. It does not matter what side you take, there are no genuine facts on which to base the future, it's unknown.

In reply to skog:

No, I'm talking about how the EU works. If the government signs other treaties they don't become law without an act of parliament, whereas with the EU the existing acts make the EU treaties part of our law as soon as they're signed.

In reply to summo:


What Fullfact predictions are you talking about? Fullfact don't make predictions, they look at others claims. Yet more of your ignorance.




There are certainly lots of summofacts.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Oh, OK. And the UK couldn't pass laws requiring parliamentary approval before signing them?

In fact, didn't the Tories pass a bill a few years ago requiring a referendum if there were further amendments to the core EU treaties?

In reply to seankenny:


Oh - give the tone a rest.

Osborne presented the 4300 figure as a headline *fact*. It is clearly not that; and his presentation is deceptive.

In reply to summo:


The OECD is funded by individual member states. The EU does not make a separate contribution. You can read the size of all the member contributions here:
http://www.oecd.org/about/budget/member-countries-budget-contributions.htm

In reply to tony:


and exactly how many member states would like the EU to leave? There is natural bias.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


but it is extremely easy to present and interpret facts in a certain way. Or only chose to present certain statistics on your website that match your possible bias. It is impossible to know. You, like most people, will have an ability to believe things that people tell you which match your opinion. That is why people read certain papers or website etc.. they generally prefer to have their views reinforced, rather than challenged. As you seem to be unable to debate, again, then I won't both either.

In reply to summo:


I asked you to point out where Fullfact had made errors.
You responded that they (whatever "they") are were just predictions.
I pointed out that Fullfact tend not to make predictions.
Now you're claiming they're biased (they may well be).
So now you've accepted your mistake about them making predictions perhaps you could point out some of their biased interpretations.

In reply to summo:


I'm not sure, but I think you're talking gibberish. That sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever. You said bodies like the OECD were funded by the EU. I pointed out the fact that it isn't. Why do you persist in making up random shit? Why not just admit there is, just occasionally, stuff you don't know.

In reply to summo:


Actually the 4K Treasury figure isn't the most pessimistic - and an LSE report into it suggested that in places their modelling was a bit optimistic. There is a big range and almost all of them (bar one, iirc) show that Brexit will make us poorer.

Is Osborne lying when he uses the figure? Well, having worked in media, communications and politics, I can assure you that his original speech and statements will be heavily caveated to acknowledge that there's s range of possibilities. What readers and listeners take away from this might be something else entirely.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Actually he said it was the "most likely" outcome. And the main figure was 36bn off GDP, with the 4300 figure to put that into some proportion.

As for the tone, apologies but I'm arguing with people who are keen to make me poorer for, as I see it, very little upside. And using rubbish arguments. What's to like about it?

In reply to seankenny:


The quote from Osborne is as follows:

"The conclusions could not be clearer. Britain would be permanently poorer if we left the E.U. to the tune of £4,300 for every household in the country. That’s a fact everyone should think about."

His claim is ridiculous (and has been widely dismantled elsewhere): it's not a 'fact.'

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well, I read "to the tune of" as giving him some wiggle room. But you're right, it's not an actual fact and elsewhere he said it was a prediction.

Now, where are the Leave stats suggesting we'll be better off? And I mean more than the one study and the discredited 350m figure?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Even if the total amount could be proved a fact (which it can't), to then go on and say that every household would be affected proportionally is rubbish. Even most economists/keen believers in the EU must be able to see that he wasn't presenting a fact.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


He's presenting the 36bn figure in another form, which is pretty standard to help people gauge the size of a large number.

Still, you're moving away from the real point, which surely must be that virtually all economists think we'll be poorer if we leave the EU. Is this a price you're willing to pay? Are you willing to risk losing your job over it? Because it looks to me that Brexit means some people are going to be made unemployed, or lose a decent job only to face a future serving fries on the minimum wage. Are you personally willing to make that sacrifice - because of you're not, why should you force it on someone else?

In reply to seankenny:

I've already lost my job. I'm prepared to make further sacrifices to help others who have and others who are on minimum wages.

In reply to seankenny:


These are more interesting questions - I think they point to existential questions for the EU. Currently, the conditions of the EU Stability and Growth Pact mean that the unemployment in Spain is about 20% and is expected never to go below 15% any time soon. In Greece, the unemployment rate is about 25%, and the general economic situation is catastrophic.

All that seems to be related to the Eurozone - an economic experiment in one sense, but one which is intimately tied to the fundamental political ideas which underpin the EU.

Where does the experiment of the Eurozone - which, as mentioned, is causing misery to people - leave the EU itself? Can it be 'fixed'? I am not particularly interested in the fact that the UK itself is not part the Eurozone, and has secured various exemptions. I am more interested in figuring out whether or not the EU is a club which I should be supporting at all.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Our unemployment rate is about 5% (slightly higher than Germany and about half that of France), is there something that leads you to believe that we would have less unemployment if we leave?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So, vote leave to damage the broader European economy, give the EU another political problem to solve - without one of its stronger members - and possibly precipitate the enormously messy break up of the Union. I do wonder how that's going to help the Greeks and Spaniards.

Anyhow, given that the ex Greek finance minister (whose name I have briefly forgotten) doesn't want us to leave, it does sound rather that you know what is good for the Greeks better than they do themselves.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


How is leaving the EU going to help people on the minimum wage?

In reply to seankenny:


Varoufakis's *hope* is that the EU might be reformable by a left-wing grouping of states. That's an admirable hope - but is it viable? As I've mentioned on this site before, he also poses the warning that the UK leaving might precipitate a collapse of the EU - with bad effects for all of Europe.

So, whilst he condemns the EU as it is - and condemns the way the EU has handled Greece - he also warns of the turmoil which might be caused by a complete collapse, and which might be initiated by the UK voting to leave. He's no idiot, so we should give careful consideration to his views,

Other leftists, however, see zero hope of a *fundamental* reform of the EU.


You really can't help yourself, can you?

In reply to seankenny:

How is remaining in the EU going to help people on minimum (or more importantly a living) wage?

Perhaps (and I may be living in La La land), once we leave the EU a more socialist outlook will take over and people might realise that change is needed.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No. But I was raising the broader question of the functioning of the EU as a whole.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

How come a) most commentators are saying that Brexit will encourage/herald a swing to the right in both UK and Europe, and b) Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and most of the unions do not agree with you?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>... b) Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and most of the unions do not agree with you?

You *must* be aware that the left are split on the issue?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I was addressing the original question and was talking about the more socialist half of the Labour Party.

In reply to seankenny:

What's wrong with you? Is the weather crap?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Rest day innit?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

My view, and I know I stand pretty much alone on this;

Because Brexit is likely to cause an initial swing to the right, I happen to believe that the corresponding swing to the left will happen far quicker and be stronger following a Brexit than decades of EU trying.

Hopefully Brexit (if it happens) can herald a change to a proper 2 tier Europe, one that can encompass all European countries. To me that makes far more sense than continue on the path we are currently on.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

Alternatively you could gamble your house on rolling a die 3 times and getting a six each time. Sounds about as likely.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Deep, man. But we can remain a member and discuss that broad question.

In reply to john arran:

Fair enough. History appears to disagree if you consider politics to be the new way of fighting wars with our neighbours.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


Sorry, you've completely lost me there. Should that have been addressed at someone else?