EU membership referendum debate thread

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Jun 2016, 02:31

I have it in my mind that it has be insinuated that this act of right wing extremism has been associated with Brexiters as LJ has suggested but it seems to have cooled of late. Without wasting time to search online I am happy with his inference.

The fact that it is not now being pushed also pleases me. I just hope that a lesson has been learned here that the absolute rubbish that in being pumped out by some on both sides is not doing the debate any good.

As I perceive it though the Brexiteers have a positive campaign saying that the UK has existed and can exist as a sovereign state independent of the EU and has the economic power to do so while the Remain camp have been predicting everything from WW3 to the end of civilisation as we know it!

Remain has not said how we will influence the 19 states who are benefiting from the largesse of the nine states which are contributing the funds to support the EU to change for the better. When you have a contributor like France which will not relinquish the funds wasted in moving the Parliament from Brussels every month how can you expect the major recipients of EU money to move? Indeed the French have been one of the major stumbling blocks in reforming the CAP because their extremely bolshey farmers don't want change and their government doesn't have the political power to stand up to them.

It is all very well saying that we should stay in to change the system but how the f**k will we change it when there are so many snouts in the trough?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Jun 2016, 04:21

Lord Beria3 wrote:Anyway, back to the referendum debate.

Simon Jenkins has written a interesting article on why he backs Remain.

I agree with many of his points and can understand the logic that Britain stay in the EU to try and save the organisation from disintegration - or at least try and make it as orderly as possible.

............................................
If they carry on "more Europe", expect to see further countries try and leave and the whole Project will fail. And it will be their fault.

I can't agree with Simon Jenkins at all. If we vote to Remain we have no bargaining power at all. We would be a busted flush. What could we say that would influence anyone to change the way things are at the moment? We are going to hold another referendum if we don't get some changes! They would laugh in Cameron's face and rightly so.

If we vote out all the chips are on our side. We are taking £200 odd million a week, or what ever the net sum is, out of the slush fund that fills the trough from which 19 of the countries of the "union" sup! We are endangering the power and income of the bureaucrats who govern us for their and their industrial masters benefit because they know that if we leave the whole pack of cards that is the EU might come tumbling down. We would be in danger of showing that life outside the EU is not only possible but entirely credible and hugely prosperous.

For those reasons we could influence what goes on in the decrepit halls of the EU. With an out vote we have them listening to our every word. With an out vote every one of those 19 nations with their snouts in the trough will be wondering where their next pay cheque is coming from. If they thought that we could be induced to stay so that they could be kept in the manner to which they have become accustomed they would perform any miracle we asked for. The impossible might require a bit of negotiation! In short, Cameron, or his successor, could go to Brussels with a massive bargaining chip worth £200 or so million a week and get virtually anything he wanted because he would have all the power.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Jun 2016, 06:12

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:"Terrorism" is one of the most abused words in the English language.
Indeed. Greenwald has a good piece on this:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why ... terrorist/
"In the West, functionally speaking, it’s now a propaganda term with little meaning other than “a Muslim who engages in violence against Westerners or their allies.” It’s even used for Muslims who attack soldiers of an army occupying their country.
...
Does anyone have any doubt at all that if Cox’s suspected killer had been Muslim, yelling “Allah Akbar” instead of “Britain First,” then every media outlet on the planet would be describing him forever as a “terrorist”? The fact that they are not doing so here sheds great light into what this word really is."
You are doing it again. So I will put it to you again:

Either this man's actions are based largely on mental illness, which is terribly sad, but informs us of nothing in terms of the EU debate. Or, this man's actions are based on a far right ideology, in which case this also informs informs us of nothing in terms of the EU debate.

The only way that this man's actions, if based largely on a far right ideology, could be used by those in the remain camp in the context of the EU debate would be if one were seeking to use this awful event to demonise and stigmatise vast portions of the working class of this country by insinuating anyone on the LEAVE side of this referendum is allied to far right extremism. Are you doing that? If you are not, then what are you doing?

Of course I'm not doing that! My only point here is the inconsistent use of the term terrorism. I'm not saying anything about, let alone linking this with the referendum!

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 19 Jun 2016, 08:41

The referendum is about whether we are part of making the decisions of the body that sets the trade rules for the European Continental Region or whether we have to follow those rules, but can be consulted by it. The tragic assassination of an MP is not relevant.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 19 Jun 2016, 08:44

johnhemming2 wrote:The referendum is about whether we are part of making the decisions of the body that sets the trade rules for the European Continental Region or whether we have to follow those rules, but can be consulted by it. The tragic assassination of an MP is not relevant.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the way you have framed the first part. However, I agree with the second part. Though, I am bound to say, it is still a bit too early to call this an "assassination". That aside, I agree.

In any event, hopefully, it looks like the attempt by some on the wider media and various online cultural spaces are now cranking their necks back in on linking the Cox murder to the more general intention to vote Leave. Largely, at least in the social media, I think, on the back of a furious backlash.

Hopefully it will remain that way.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 19 Jun 2016, 08:55

Little John wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:The referendum is about whether we are part of making the decisions of the body that sets the trade rules for the European Continental Region or whether we have to follow those rules, but can be consulted by it.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the way you have framed the first part.

What body will set the trade rules for this continent if we leave the EU? Will we have to follow any trade rules or can we simply rely on the WTO rules?

Little John wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote: The tragic assassination of an MP is not relevant.
it is still a bit too early to call this an "assassination".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination

Assassination is the deliberate killing of a person, often (but not always) a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 19 Jun 2016, 09:27

Survation poll (in The Sun admittedly) put Remain 3 points in the lead:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1305846/p ... eir-minds/

With 13% classed as Don't Know, guess this could go either way.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 19 Jun 2016, 09:34

I can't agree with Simon Jenkins at all. If we vote to Remain we have no bargaining power at all. We would be a busted flush. What could we say that would influence anyone to change the way things are at the moment? We are going to hold another referendum if we don't get some changes! They would laugh in Cameron's face and rightly so.

If we vote out all the chips are on our side. We are taking £200 odd million a week, or what ever the net sum is, out of the slush fund that fills the trough from which 19 of the countries of the "union" sup! We are endangering the power and income of the bureaucrats who govern us for their and their industrial masters benefit because they know that if we leave the whole pack of cards that is the EU might come tumbling down. We would be in danger of showing that life outside the EU is not only possible but entirely credible and hugely prosperous.

For those reasons we could influence what goes on in the decrepit halls of the EU. With an out vote we have them listening to our every word. With an out vote every one of those 19 nations with their snouts in the trough will be wondering where their next pay cheque is coming from. If they thought that we could be induced to stay so that they could be kept in the manner to which they have become accustomed they would perform any miracle we asked for. The impossible might require a bit of negotiation! In short, Cameron, or his successor, could go to Brussels with a massive bargaining chip worth £200 or so million a week and get virtually anything he wanted because he would have all the power.

I don't see this is certain, it implies continued economic growth, and we know that can't go on for much longer, as it also implies continued population growth, which is a pretty unpleasant prospect.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 19 Jun 2016, 09:57

I don't buy the "we have no influence unless we are at the table" argument.

The very fact of leaving would have major implications for the EU, forcing reform in order to stop further dissent and fragmentation. There are many ways this could play out. Only the French really want to "punish" the UK for leaving, but they have limited power when most of the smaller countries and also German business interests would rather see a more co-operative approach to dealing with the UK.

This goes back to a lot of history. Same reason the French didn't want us to join in the first place. Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Seven Years War.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 19 Jun 2016, 10:27

UndercoverElephant wrote:I don't buy the "we have no influence unless we are at the table" argument.

The very fact of leaving would have major implications for the EU, forcing reform in order to stop further dissent and fragmentation. There are many ways this could play out. Only the French really want to "punish" the UK for leaving, but they have limited power when most of the smaller countries and also German business interests would rather see a more co-operative approach to dealing with the UK.

This goes back to a lot of history. Same reason the French didn't want us to join in the first place. Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Seven Years War.

You miss the big one - the UK is owned by the sons of the French thieves who stole it 1000 years ago. The landowners want their farming slush fund. The landlords want more peasants.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 19 Jun 2016, 11:03

UndercoverElephant wrote:I don't buy the "we have no influence unless we are at the table" argument.

It is: We have more influence at the table in the room than shouting outside.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 19 Jun 2016, 11:37

AutomaticEarth wrote:Survation poll (in The Sun admittedly) put Remain 3 points in the lead:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1305846/p ... eir-minds/

With 13% classed as Don't Know, guess this could go either way.

When has the Sun printed a fact?

Post by **clv101** » 19 Jun 2016, 12:17

Four new polls today discussed on Andrew Neil's politics show this morning. Overwhelming message is that to the first order it's a dead heat, the lead Leave were showing last week seems to have gone. To the second order things like turnout and what the 'don't knows' are actually going to do are key. Apparently the most likely thing for a 'don't know' to do, is not vote. Then of those that do vote, they prefer the status quo voting 3 to 2 for Remain.

I think small c conservatism and preserving the status quo will become more of a thing over the next three days, with Remain winning.

My personal prediction is for Remain to win with a margin of 3% (+/- 5%), that is a margin of +8 to -2% or an 80% chance of Remaining.

It would be interesting to hear others' predictions?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 19 Jun 2016, 12:34

Too close to call. 50/50. I expect the result also to be very close, which is unfortunate.

Post by **clv101** » 19 Jun 2016, 12:39

William Hill's and Paddy Power's odds have moved toward Remain today, now 0.33 vs 2.25, (or 1/3 vs 9/4 but I hate fractional odds).

Anyone really thinking Leave are going to win, or even that it's a 50/50 has a good reason for betting on Leave this morning!