EU membership referendum debate thread

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 15 Apr 2016, 23:44

Actually, John Hemming has been conspicuous by his absence on this forum.

John - you there buddy?

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 15 Apr 2016, 23:47

emordnilap wrote:Heh heh: http://voteleave.co.uk/

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/eve ... h?splash=1

Post by **clv101** » 15 Apr 2016, 23:50

AutomaticEarth wrote:Actually, John Hemming has been conspicuous by his absence on this forum.

John - you there buddy?

His last post was a little over 24 hrs ago!
(Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:44 pm)

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 15 Apr 2016, 23:59

clv101 wrote:
AutomaticEarth wrote:Actually, John Hemming has been conspicuous by his absence on this forum.

John - you there buddy?
His last post was a little over 24 hrs ago!
(Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:44 pm)

Sorry CLV, I meant on this particular thread. But 24hrs is a long time on this forum

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 16 Apr 2016, 09:15

AutomaticEarth wrote:
clv101 wrote:
AutomaticEarth wrote:Actually, John Hemming has been conspicuous by his absence on this forum.

John - you there buddy?
His last post was a little over 24 hrs ago!
(Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:44 pm)
Sorry CLV, I meant on this particular thread. But 24hrs is a long time on this forum

My last post on this thread appears on the previous page.

To me the issue about the EU referendum is the question as to whether the UK has more power to swing things as part of the EU, or as part of being consulted as to changes to trade agreements - essentially set by the EU.

If you consider the question about rules relating to bananas - I pick this because of the debate about the EU rules - obviously a trade agreement has to have rules about what makes a good, not so good and adequate banana.

There are not going to be lots of different sets of rules. It is, of course, possible, but there is no sense having a trade agreement if all the standards set for trade vary. Hence are the rules going to be set by the EU or the UK. It is somewhat obvious that they will be set by the EU and the UK (if not in the EU) would be part of consultation.

The most likely result from Brexit would be that the UK would be in the EEA. That has the same rules on freedom of movement, but we cannot veto new members of the EU (unlike at the moment).

As to what I am doing. People probably know that whilst I was an MP I earnt more money from outside parliament than in politics. The loss of my parliamentary income has little effect as my costs have also gone down. I would like to do a lot more music, but am not in a position to do that at the moment. Hence I am doing much as to what I did plus at the moment some computer programming. I am continuing to campaign against secret imprisonment, miscarriages of justice and the persecution of families.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Apr 2016, 09:32

johnhemming2 wrote: To me the issue about the EU referendum is the question as to whether the UK has more power to swing things as part of the EU, or as part of being consulted as to changes to trade agreements - essentially set by the EU.

It's interesting, but not exactly surprising, that much of the EU debate within Britain is about whether or not it will be 'good' for Britain. There is less talk about what is in the common interest of all Europeans and the wider world. That's a pity. The greatest good for the greatest number should trump sectarian or nationalistic interests.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 16 Apr 2016, 09:58

biffvernon wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote: To me the issue about the EU referendum is the question as to whether the UK has more power to swing things as part of the EU, or as part of being consulted as to changes to trade agreements - essentially set by the EU.
It's interesting, but not exactly surprising, that much of the EU debate within Britain is about whether or not it will be 'good' for Britain. There is less talk about what is in the common interest of all Europeans and the wider world. That's a pity. The greatest good for the greatest number should trump sectarian or nationalistic interests.

There is, however, a balance to be struck. Self-interest always has to have some influence on decision-making.

In practice trade areas have to have some form of political union in order to have common rules for trade that can be modified in a democratic manner. Otherwise it all happens in secret through fixes.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Apr 2016, 11:12

johnhemming2 wrote: Self-interest always has to have some influence on decision-making.

I'm not sure that it 'always has to'. But clearly self-interest does have some influence so long as people put self-interest above the common good. It's a pity.

The trick is to demonstrate that long term self-interest and the common good are the same thing. That was what, at least in part, motivated the founders of Common Market and still motivates many who would remain.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 16 Apr 2016, 12:13

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_c ... he_eu.html

Environmentalists are near unanimous in believing the UK should remain in the EU, writes Harry Blain. Yet that puts us in the same camp as many of our fiercest enemies - neoliberal governments and corporate lobbyists for fossil fuels, cars and other polluting industries. Meanwhile the EU itself is increasingly undermining its own environmental protections as it pursues 'free trade' agreements around the world. Time for a rethink? You bet!

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 18 Apr 2016, 03:20

That is what concerns me. I don't want to vote Out, which would be my default position, because I'm worried what an unfettered Tory government would do. But then by voting In I'm doing what the Tory government and their multinational industry backers want me to do. Is the Tory government playing a game of double bluff?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Apr 2016, 07:31

kenneal - lagger wrote:That is what concerns me. I don't want to vote Out, which would be my default position, because I'm worried what an unfettered Tory government would do. But then by voting In I'm doing what the Tory government and their multinational industry backers want me to do. Is the Tory government playing a game of double bluff?

Ken, we already know what the Tories would like to do. But, the great thing about a sovereign democracy is that policies can be changed at election time by the electorate voting for a party with opposing policies to those of the incumbents. That’s democracy.

To vote to stay in because of a fear of what the Tories might immediately do as a consequence of being unshackled by the EU is counsel of despair. In other words, it is based on a lack of belief in the capacity of our own country to democratically run its own affairs and is, presumably, further based on a forlorn hope that a fundamentally undemocratic supra-national institution (the EU) will not shaft us as much. Well, you know as well as I do Ken, that supra-national institution is a neo-con corporate-capitalist institution to it's very core and will never, when push comes to shove, go against the interests of the giant Yank corporations. If you don't believe me, take a look at Greece for details of what happens to any EU state that has the temerity to stand up to these bastards. It's time for us all to grow a bloody backbone and take back control of our own country.

Also, as an aside, regarding the secondary argument about the danger of a Scottish exit from the UK following a Brexit, I would suggest that is far from certain. The Scottish people were fairly evenly divided at the Scottish referendum. But, that was pre-the collapse of the oil price. If they were to go for independence now, with the oil price as it is, the current levels of austerity in Scotland would pale by comparison. Secondly, the Scottish referendum occurred prior to the migrant crisis really taking off and the disastrous Merkel policy which now lies in tatters. Again, it is by no means clear that the Scottish people would wish to align themselves to an EU in such obvious disarray. Whilst the Scottish National Party may well have a policy that is extremely pro-EU. I would suggest that the Scottish people's opinion on this is not so clear cut.

To reiterate though, in the end, irrespective of all the uncertainties, both real and imagined, it comes down to whether or not one believes in democracy and the blood that was shed by our ancestors in winning this precious thing for us. Or whether one believes that avoidance of uncertainty is worth any cost, even democracy.

Post by **clv101** » 18 Apr 2016, 19:44

Little John wrote:The Scottish people were fairly evenly divided at the Scottish referendum. But, that was pre-the collapse of the oil price. If they were to go for independence now, with the oil price as it is, the current levels of austerity in Scotland would pale by comparison.

The oil price is not going to stay low! Any second Scottish referendum is several years away - oil could well be well over $100 by 2019.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 18 Apr 2016, 20:18

Little John wrote:The Scottish people were fairly evenly divided at the Scottish referendum. But, that was pre-the collapse of the oil price. If they were to go for independence now, with the oil price as it is, the current levels of austerity in Scotland would pale by comparison.

And I always thought you had the view that austerity was a political choice rather than something driven by economic necessity. Welcome to the club of rational people.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Apr 2016, 20:29

johnhemming2 wrote:
Little John wrote:The Scottish people were fairly evenly divided at the Scottish referendum. But, that was pre-the collapse of the oil price. If they were to go for independence now, with the oil price as it is, the current levels of austerity in Scotland would pale by comparison.
And I always thought you had the view that austerity was a political choice rather than something driven by economic necessity. Welcome to the club of rational people.

It's both and I have never indicated otherwise.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 18 Apr 2016, 20:33

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:The Scottish people were fairly evenly divided at the Scottish referendum. But, that was pre-the collapse of the oil price. If they were to go for independence now, with the oil price as it is, the current levels of austerity in Scotland would pale by comparison.
The oil price is not going to stay low! Any second Scottish referendum is several years away - oil could well be well over $100 by 2019.

That may or may not be true, longer term. The point I was making, however, is that the SNP's threat to take the independence question back to the Scottish people immediately following a Brexit is a largely hollow threat because, as things economically stand right now and for the short to medium term, Scotland alone would economically fare less well than it currently does.