EU membership referendum debate thread

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jun 2016, 08:58

BritDownUnder wrote:I would put most of the UK civil servants in the Monty Python upper class twit of the year category.

How many of them do you know personally? I guess they can't be the ones I know.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 06 Jun 2016, 22:46

Janet Yellen now saying that Brexit might delay a US interest rate rise. So what?

On top of that JPAM (JP Morgan Asset Management) now saying that 4k jobs could go. Those jobs will go anyway......

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jun 2016, 07:32

and as a consequence taxes are lower and public spending faces greater cuts. As my 10 year old daughter (who supports remain) says - she won't die whatever happens. However, many of the poorer people in society will suffer if we leave.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Jun 2016, 08:54

johnhemming2 wrote:and as a consequence taxes are lower and public spending faces greater cuts. As my 10 year old daughter (who supports remain) says - she won't die whatever happens. However, many of the poorer people in society will suffer if we leave.

You are doing the usual thing for a politician which is making unjustified statements to support an agenda.

First, your daughter needs to understand that in the end she will die, whatever happens, just maybe not soon. As for many poorer people suffering if we leave, they (and lots of not so poor people) are going to suffer whether we remain or leave. This is because the UK is up to its eye balls in debt (how does NINE times GDP grab you?) The major problem with remaining is control over our lives will be conducted by an unelected (by the people) comission. If the now impotent electorate whishes to elect another governing group they will not be able to do it. That is what you should be considering, and telling your daughter, not the spin crap about "we'll be dooooomed, doooomed I tell ye, if we leave".

We will also need to build the equivalent of a large town every year to accomodate the population from across the channel over which the government has no control while we are in the EU.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 07 Jun 2016, 17:35

I am all for leaving the EU, woodburner, but there is a fair chance that any UK gov will not actually bother to reduce immigration - because they really don't give a toss and we know how the public are sheep. The US gov doesn't stop it. The city/whitehall have been crapping themselves for decades that white brits don't breed enough [neither do S Koreans or Japanese according to the gurus]

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Jun 2016, 18:10

fuzzy wrote: The US gov doesn't stop it.

I suspect it will stop it if Mr Trump is in charge.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jun 2016, 19:34

woodburner wrote:You are doing the usual thing for a politician which is making unjustified statements to support an agenda.

I don't deny there are problems with the way the EU works. It is, however, better than many other trade agreements. It does, after all, also value environmental issues and the conditions of employees.

It is entirely clear that much of the foreign investment in the UK is predicated on the UK being a member of the EU. If the UK were to leave this investment would go.

The commission is appointed by national government. Our own cabinet is not directly elected. I admit that it is some years since there was a cabinet minister who was neither a member of the Commons or the Lords. Many peers, however, have never been directly elected.

The freedom of movement rules relate to the EEA and we will still be a member of that if we leave the EU.

Post by **clv101** » 07 Jun 2016, 21:04

johnhemming2 wrote:The commission is appointed by national government. Our own cabinet is not directly elected. I admit that it is some years since there was a cabinet minister who was neither a member of the Commons or the Lords. Many peers, however, have never been directly elected.

The freedom of movement rules relate to the EEA and we will still be a member of that if we leave the EU.

Yes, these are two interesting points, that the commission is appointed by elected national governments just as our cabinet is. And secondly what does leaving the EU actually mean?

It seems the manner of our leaving would be negotiated by our Westminster MPs, the vast majority of whom are pro-remain. This leaves open the very real possibility we'll technically leave the EU (but it'll take years of foot dragging, Gove mentioned we'd still be members in 2020!) but stay in the free trade area, with free movement of people!

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 07 Jun 2016, 21:22

Just watching the Farage/Cameron show on TV. Farage coping well with the (biased audience&host?). Be interesting to see how Cameron is treated.

Bah, hard to tell. Rubbish show anyway. Don't know why I bother watching them.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:28

When all of the verbiage is stripped away, it comes down to the central fact of there being no way for the electorate of directly effecting reform in the EU via their vote because the EU is fundamentally undemocratic by design.

I take it you we are all aware how the British parliament works? That is to say, each member of parliament has the right to individually cast a vote and, when all MP's votes are counted, legislation rises or falls. It's not a perfect system. God know it is not. But, due to its structure it is, at least in principle, reformable to a better version of itself. The EU parliament, on the other hand, in democratic terms, is a mere chimera. MEP's have no capacity to enact laws. Those laws are proposed by the commission, a body that is not directly accountable to the people, and enacted by the European council, a body that is totally unaccountable to the people. The one body that is accountable to the people of Europe, the EU parliament, is filled with MEPs who merely have the power to "offer an opinion" on the legislation. And guess what? Given the obscenely large salaries and other perks they receive from the EU (which means from us, the EU taxpayers), they are more than happy to go along with the democratic charade and rubber stamp everything that passes through their grubby little excuse for a parliament.

Now, of course, during much of the eighties and nineties, much of (the EU) Europe was comprised of social democratic parties who were left of centre leaning. Thus, much of the legislation proposed by the commission (being comprised of the heads of state of the various EU nations of the time) tended to be centrist and socially democratic in nature. However, you may or may not have noticed that many of the newer members of the EU club have been only historically recently fascist states and/or are contemporaneously far more right wing than the original grouping ever were. Furthermore the idiot Merkel's insane Pollyanna attitude to border controls has caused a massive backlash across the entire EU and far right strongmen look set to be in place in many of these previously liberal left nations in the near future. So, while a laissez-fair attitude to democracy in the EU while the political sun was shining was naive, even during those good times, in the bad times it looks positively insane. This is what happens when one makes the terrible mistake of thinking democracy is a fair price to pay for "stability".

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:31

Little John wrote:When all of the verbiage is stripped away, it comes down to the central fact of there being no way for the electorate of directly effecting reform in the EU via their vote because the EU is fundamentally undemocratic by design.

When you compare the EU to other trade agreements (common markets etc) You find it is more democratic than for example the proposals with TTIP etc.

The European parliament has been getting more power compared to the commission which is after all controlled by the european council (not, of course, the council of europe).

It is not perfect, but assuming that it is replaced by some form of trade agreements it is better than most other mechanisms.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:34

clv101 wrote:This leaves open the very real possibility we'll technically leave the EU (but it'll take years of foot dragging, Gove mentioned we'd still be members in 2020!) but stay in the free trade area, with free movement of people!

In a strict sense the agreement remains in place. Oddly enough this was UKIPs initial proposal. The CAP and CFP go, but the rest remains.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:42

If the Brexit vote wins and yet the issue of lack of border controls and unrestricted immigration remains unaddressed there will, finally, be violence on the street of this country. And rightly so.

Post by **clv101** » 09 Jun 2016, 08:27

Indeed. Osborne, interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday said "I think we'd end up signing up to free movement of people, but having to say over how it operated. We'd lose the cooperation of some of our closed allies on key things like border control...begging to get back into the single market, prepared to pay almost any price."

I think this could be a major issue. Immigration is probably the number one reason people vote leave, yet it's not clear than leaving the EU would achieve the limits/controls commonly assumed.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 09 Jun 2016, 09:06

Either the elected politicians will carry out the will of the people, or the people will elect a strongman who will. At which point, the MSM and the rest of the liberal establishment will no doubt throw up their hands in horror and cry "How did it come to this?"

Fools to the left of us, jokers to the right.