EU membership referendum debate thread

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

Little John wrote: I am using the language appropriate to regaining sovereignty of this nation. That language applies irrespective of where one falls on the Left-Right political dimension and the fact of your refusal to acknowledge or even, seemingly, understand this this makes my point for me. It does not, however, apply irrespective of where one falls on the Globalism-Localism dimension. It is the language of Localism and I am a Localist. Not, especially, because I wish to be. But, because Localism is inevitable and will become ever more so in the years to come.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

Little John is not a believer in having an English Dictionary with commonly accepted meanings for words.

The underlying problem is that if we have international agreements then we have to follow them. We have always been "sovereign" to the extent that we could pull out of an agreement.

The question is one as to what is in the agreements. The EU was always one of the best structures for a trade agreement as it took into account issues such as the environment and working conditions as well as trade. It is much better than TIPP or CETA or indeed the WTO.

The reduction in the value of sterling does assist the UK economy in isolation although, of course, our currency is worth less which does have wider impacts.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

I didn't say and have never said the UK should not have international agreements that have been made with the permission of the British people and which can be unmade with that same permission. And that is the central point. Arrangements, both internally and externally, enacted by our sovereign parliament on our (the people's) behalf and with our democratic permission is precisely the reason why I and many millions of other voted to leave the EU.
bigjim
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cleethorpes

Post by bigjim »

Little John wrote:I didn't say and have never said the UK should not have international agreements that have been made with the permission of the British people and which can be unmade with that same permission. And that is the central point. Arrangements, both internally and externally, enacted by our sovereign parliament on our (the people's) behalf and with our democratic permission is precisely the reason why I and many millions of other voted to leave the EU.
How do we give our 'permission' for these international agreements you talk of? We do not do referenda in this country!
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

If those international agreements involve handing over sovereignty of this nation, then referenda are precisely what are required. This was understood when we joined the common market. But the piss was taken in the intervening years. which is why the pressure for a second referendum grew until finally it was politically irresistible.
bigjim
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cleethorpes

Post by bigjim »

Little John wrote:If those international agreements involve handing over sovereignty of this nation, then referenda are precisely what are required. This was understood when we joined the common market. But the piss was taken in the intervening years. which is why the pressure for a second referendum grew until finally it was politically irresistible.
I don't think the pressure was irresistible- there's always been a dissatisfied anti EU bunch but the referendum was a result of a long term Tory party spat as far as I know (not arguing over the result this time)

Incidentally, as Angus MacNeil, MP for Western Isles said, there's only 6 nations currently in the world that are not part of any form of regional trade agreement- they are São Tomé & Principe, Palau, East Timor, Mauritania, Somalia and South Sudan. So trade agreements appear to be a 'normal' thing to be a part of. So I still think it'd be a mistake to cut ties with the EU completely, given that many people have created a living out of exporting things to EU customers- I reckon EFTA is way forward. Will this keep as many people as possible happy? Or will this still lead to bloodshed, as you are keen to assert?
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8773
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Little John wrote:... which is why the pressure for a second referendum grew until finally it was politically irresistible.
I don't buy that. It was quite possible, politically feasible, not to have a referendum, and indeed very few people including Cameron and Osborne thought we'd have one as their majority in 2015 was unexpected. Had we had another coalition government any chance of referendum would have been pushed by to the 2020s.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

If there had not been a referendum there would have been trouble at some point down the line. When is impossible to predict.

However, in the context of a declining global economic environment, accompanied by massive waves of immigration over a short period of time, then some kind of appeasement of the will of the people was inevitable or there would have been more than mere trouble and it would have been soon.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Little John wrote:If there had not been a referendum there would have been trouble at some point down the line.
Agreed. The issue had been festering for 20 years already. It was only a matter or time when somebody in power ended up in a position where it could be ignored no longer. It was not politically feasible for David Cameron to not hold the referendum, because it was in their manifesto. And it had to be in the manifesto because it wasn't politically possible within the tory party to avoid it - he would not have been able to command a majority in Parliament otherwise, because his majority was smaller than the number of his own MPs who would have been willing to make his life impossible if he had not agreed to hold the referendum.
Post Reply