The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Risso]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Adam Ant Fail  .. Don't worry @Risso , one of us got it  

 

Cheers Tony, thought you'd get it!

[coda]

Tight.

[mockingbird_franklin]

50/50 you say, looks like the powers that be haven't quite decided which way is in their best interest yet then

[chrisp65]

Cameron's speech today:

Quote

......Others say we would definitely leave the single market – including, yesterday, the Vote Leave campaign – despite the critical importance of the single market to jobs and investment in our country.

I can only describe this as a reckless and irresponsible course. These are people’s jobs and livelihoods that are being toyed with.....

Quote

....why would you do so when the future of your entire country is at stake?....If we leave, it is – genuinely – a leap in the dark....

Quote

.....Second, the dangerous international situation facing Britain today, means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra – it is essential. We need to stand united. Now is a time for strength in numbers.....

Quote

....Fourth, far from Britain’s influence in the world being undermined by our membership of the EU, it amplifies our power.....

Quote

....The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.

Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?....

Quote

...

the international situation confronting Britain today means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra.

It is essential for this country’s security and our ability to get things done in the world.....

Quote

The European Union – and the close culture of intergovernmental cooperation between governments which it embodies – is a vital tool in our armoury to deal with these threats....Britain’s departure would weaken solidarity and the unity of the west as a whole.

PM Speech 09.05.2016

There's plenty more of the same if you want to read it.

Given his words, surely he should resign, now? Either he doesn't believe his own speech, he's lying. Or, he has recklessly endangered the future of this country.

He's an idiot. A dangerous idiot. Shirley?

[blandy]

16 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

he's lying

Well obviously he's lying. They all lie. It's a thing they do, politicians. They know they shouldn't, but they do it anyway.

A couple of months ago he was saying if the EU didn't give him what he wanted he'd recommend leaving, himself.

[villakram]

On 5/9/2016 at 11:39, coda said:

Tight.

looks like somewhat forgot to add actual data to the default excel barchart option!

[villa4europe]

Well obviously he's lying. They all lie. It's a thing they do, politicians. They know they shouldn't, but they do it anyway.

A couple of months ago he was saying if the EU didn't give him what he wanted he'd recommend leaving, himself.

Lying and telling you what the other lot are shit at

Welcome to modern day politics

I honestly still haven't got a clue which way to vote, they'll all full of shit

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

My decision is pretty much one based on faith. I believe that there is a better chance of tackling the major issues (income inequality, the climate) within the EU. I don't believe that an increasingly mean-spirited UK dominated by Toffs, with no checks on their power, will do anything remotely worthwhile on either issue. In fact, they are more likely to double down on their destruction of public institutions in the hope of maintaining if not expanding their own class privileges while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. They are more likely to favour further destruction of the environment because there is money to be made from it. So, while the EU may not be perfect, and certainly not without its share of capitalist arseholes, I have far more faith in Europeans to get together and sort this shit out than I do the English.

 

[chrisp65]

Well that nice quiet man Iain Duncan Shit assures us that if the EU is being promoted by big business and the establishment, then it must be bad for the little guy. He was urging us all in a radio interview yesterday that if we are fed up with having our working hours limited and fed up with restrictive job protection legislation and fed up with human rights, fed up with work related accidents being reduced by poxy enhanced h&s legislation, we should vote leave, and put our faith in the little guy's friend, the tory party.

Sad thing is, there will be people that will nod sagely, ignore all the historical evidence, and agree with him. 

There are arguments to vote leave. The tory party being the ultimate guardian and protector of the poor and vulnerable is not really one.

[Xann]

Quote

 

The founder of one of the main groups campaigning to pull Britain out of the European Union has called for the NHS to be sold off to the private sector.  

Campaigners from the Leave.EU group have claimed in public that if Britain pulled out of Europe, the money that currently goes to Brussels could “be spent on our priorities such as the NHS”.

But during a visit to the United States, Arron Banks, the co-founder of the group who has given millions of pounds to bankroll the campaign, admitted he was in favour of privatising the NHS entirely. 

"If it were up to me, I’d privatise the NHS,” he said in comments reported by Bloomberg News.

Mr Banks also claimed his strategy to win the referendum campaign was to “bore the electorate into submission” in the hope that turnout was low – which he believed would help the leave cause.

"If turnout is low, we win. If it’s high, we lose," Mr Banks said. "Our strategy is to bore the electorate into submission, and it’s working."

 

Independent

[HanoiVillan]

Thanks for the talking point Mr Banks!

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

Independent

Also from there:

Quote

Bloomberg said some of the people Mr Banks spoke to were unconvinced by his arguments.

"It was the most unimpressive and unconvincing argument for a political case I’ve seen in years,” said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at Cato. “He appealed to every type of argument that’s unconvincing: naked nationalism, nativism, anti-free-market, anti-capitalism ideas.

"There was a solid intellectual case to be made for Brexit, but that was not it."

 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

Quote

 

Accusing the “the establishment” of fixing the debates to shut out the official campaign, a senior Vote Leave source also took aim at one of ITV’s most prominent journalists, adding: “ITV is led by people like Robert Peston who campaigned for Britain to join the euro.

“ITV has lied to us in private while secretly stitching up a deal with Cameron to stop Boris Johnson or Michael Gove debating the issues properly.”

In an apparent threat of retribution down the line, the source added: “ITV has effectively joined the official in campaign and there will be consequences for its future – the people in No 10 won’t be there for long.”

 

Classy as ever.

guardian

Edited May 12, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[PieFacE]

The only thing I really care about is how it will affect the economy, and I really have no idea which way it will go if we leave or stay for our economy. There just doesn't seem to be any concrete answer to that question. If no one can convince me that the economy will be better off if we leave the EU, then I think i'll vote to stay. 

[Chindie]

No-one can guarentee you anything.

As far as the economy goes the Leave angle has largely been 'You'll get the same as you do now'. That's with some wishful thinking that by leaving the EU but maintaining our participation with the common market, we wouldn't suffer in some way - despite the fact we'd be talking to the EU in the same terms Norway does (but with a completely different economy to Norway, so you can't take their comparative success as a guide to us), still paying into the pot but with no seat at the table, but allowed to buy and sell to the people at the table... They also argue it'll open up us to deal with the wider world. Which we already do - we're one of the biggest trading partners of Bangladesh, it turns out, right now, for instance.

Economically, you're probably better off staying in. Finance likes stability, the EU is a known quantity, so money likes it. Leaving brings uncertainty, and for a while there would at least be a wobble while things were thought through and everyone worked out exactly how and what Britain is removed from the EU.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Chindie

[Awol]

On 13/05/2016 at 16:17, Chindie said:

No-one can guarentee you anything.

As far as the economy goes the Leave angle has largely been 'You'll get the same as you do now'. That's with some wishful thinking that by leaving the EU but maintaining our participation with the common market, we wouldn't suffer in some way - despite the fact we'd be talking to the EU in the same terms Norway does (but with a completely different economy to Norway, so you can't take their comparative success as a guide to us), still paying into the pot but with no seat at the table, but allowed to buy and sell to the people at the table... They also argue it'll open up us to deal with the wider world. Which we already do - we're one of the biggest trading partners of Bangladesh, it turns out, right now, for instance.

I'm not sure that's right. The Leave lot have said consistently that the UK would negotiate its own free trade deal with the EU block in the same manner as the 50 odd none EU countries that have free trade with the EU now. It's the Remain side who, quite disingenuously, try to suggest the UK has to choose an existing model like Norway or Switzerland, countries who by definition negotiated their own bespoke arrangements.  

What is clear is that we would be leaving the single market which encompasses all of the EU law making competencies, political institutions etc. and in so doing would have no further financial obligations to help fund the EU - a significant problem for Germany and France with a bill of £10 billion net that UK taxpayers will not be putting into the pot, but not our problem. If we didn't leave the single market in favour of an FTA (which they will want given the £80 billion trade deficit UK runs with the EU) then Brexit would be pretty pointless.

It is also clear that Brexit would allow us to forge FTA's with countries the EU currently doesn't have like China, India, Australia, Singapore and other areas of the world that are actually experiencing good economic growth. Interestingly (maybe..) the aggregated economies of the Euro Zone were the same size at the end of 2015 as they were in 2006 and the block's share of global GDP has been declining for decades, as has our trade with it (10% down over the last decade) while our trade with the rest of world increases in real terms.  Whatever else the EU may or may not be it is not economically dynamic and the future looks bleak.

Remain have also made a big deal about having to renegotiate the 60 odd existing free trade deals that we have access to through the EU, a point demolished in the Telegraph yesterday: Link

..there is a dishonesty in so much of the talk on trade. The IMF says Britain’s commercial arrangements with 60 non-EU economies - now under the auspices of the EU - would lapse automatically, and would have to be renegotiated. They know full-well that this is a canard.These deals could be switched easily enough under the principle of “presumption of continuity” enshrined in international law. All they need do is to sign a document of continuation in force, an administrative procedure.

    

Economically, you're probably better off staying in. Finance likes stability, the EU is a known quantity, so money likes it. Leaving brings uncertainty, and for a while there would at least be a wobble while things were thought through and everyone worked out exactly how and what Britain is removed from the EU.

There would definitely be some uncertainty on Brexit while we reshaped our trading relationships, but I think the talk of recession is designed purely to scare the horses into voting Remain. In the mid to longer term there is every reason to think we would do better, not least because of the risk inherent in remaining, i.e. the Eurozone is still on course for disaster. Mervyn King the ex BoE Governor published a great book recently called The End of Alchemy, which spells out why the Euro is doomed unless the EU completes the process of turning itself into a unitary State. They may well do that (and best of luck to them) but it isn't something I'd personally want the UK to be part of.

I know you think this argument is a Red Herring Chindie, but if you're right why does a trading block need the following: all of the political institutions, various courts with ultimate sovereignty over Member States, it's own Foreign Office and embassies, Police Force and the coming Euro Army proposals from Germany - currently being held back until after the referendum along with proposals to harmonise company law, tax regimes and more.  Taken along side the very clear statements of intent from continental European politicians of all stripes (and over many decades) about "The European Project", it seems like willful self delusion to deny that the EU is rapidly adopting all the trappings of a State?     

For people who are undecided how or if they will vote then Brexit The Movie is worth a watch to get one side of the issue, it does summarise many of the Leave arguments quite well.        

 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

Remain have also made a big deal about having to renegotiate the 60 odd existing free trade deals that we have access to through the EU, a point demolished in the Telegraph yesterday: Link

I'm not sure it is 'demolished'. What Evans-Pritchard points out is that there is such a thing as presumption of continuity but he then goes on to say, quite dismissively, that 'all they need to do is...'.

It will be interesting what detail he returns to on this point in coming days (as he says he will) because, having also read Dr North's blog, it says:

Quote

In more recent times, there was the "velvet divorce" between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which created precisely that problem. But it was resolved when on 19 January 1993 the two republics were admitted to the UN as new and separate states. In respect of international treaties, they simply agreed to honour the treaty obligations of Czechoslovakia.

The Slovaks transmitted a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations on 19 May 1993 expressing their intent to remain a party to all treaties signed and ratified by Czechoslovakia, and to ratify those treaties signed but not ratified before dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

This letter acknowledged that under international law all treaties signed and ratified by Czechoslovakia would remain in force.

...

There is one minor snag, in that continued participation in the treaties will normally require the consent of all the parties. It does not seem likely, though, that many parties will want to withhold consent, especially as, in many cases, third countries are beneficiaries of the treaty provisions.

This would suggest that it isn't such a simple administrative procedure unless the UK would be willing to accept all treaties to which we are signatories as a member of the EU. I may be wrong - thus it will be interesting to see any future detail.

Edited May 15, 2016 by snowychap

[mjmooney]

Clearly, Boris is no more aware of Godwin's Law than Ken Livingstone. 

[ROTTERDAM1982]

If we was outside the EU, and the vote was whether to join or not join, then how wwould you vote?

I have to say i find the whole debate about this referendum rather pathetic, i take exception to Carews insistance that the EU will deal with our national interest better than an elected British govt.They haven't helped the Greeks at all have they.Eveybody in their right mind wants the EU to succeed , but all the experiences over the last 30 years suggest that it won't,and i think that rather than just bumle along, we would be better cutting our losses and leaving.

 

[Chindie]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

Lots to quote...

As you know AWOL I disagree on most of this so probably not worth running through the same all arguments, but a quick couple of points, not necessarily directed at yourself.

Regarding look the common market - I'm fairly sure it's been confirmed that that is off the table - I recall Cameron in an interview a while back saying the referendum was about EU membership, not common market membership, so we would be agreeing to be Norway. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to find that quote.

In respect of other FTAs, I'll link here which has the following conclusion...

Quote

...Britain’s choice is this: it can choose to stay in the single market – a very deep FTA, agreed with its largest trade partners, and one with a proven track record in reducing the cost of trade. Or it can leave it, and try to sign dozens of free trade agreements with less certain benefits to make up for the opportunities forgone in Europe. The conclusion should be obvious: free traders should support Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

I also believe there's not much stopping us trading wherever we like even with the EU in place. As said, we're one of Bangladesh's biggest trade partners.

You're certainly correct I think the USE argument is spurrious, as explained previously. The reason for all of the additional trappings is because the common market requires overarching institutions and laws to ensure it works. The common market is a very deep agreement, which has benefited it and in turn us, but also has required those additional elements over a 'normal' FTA which can be irritating. You need regulations on many areas across borders to ensure the market is actually common - EU law on sausages for a basic (but rubbish and flawed) example has to be imposed across the area to ensure the playing field is as level as possible - if everyone agrees the standard of welfare for pigs and type of meat that can be used, but the French decide they can increase their profits by breaking the rules, the market starts to suffer. So you have overarching laws etc. It also needs institutions that represent the union internationally to allow it to interact as a block with the wider world. This does give it elements of statehood, simply because the agreement is such that it has 'the trappings of a state'. But it isn't a state. It's members retain sovereignty - this referendum doesn't happen if we are no longer sovereign, the EUs underlying treaties don't have capacity and procedure for exit if it's members lose their sovereignty, and (and this part of the reason the sausage example is crap) members don't ignore the organisation when it suits them if the Union superceded then add states (as significant members did when the financial crisis bit despite the EU telling them not to). I have no doubt at all there are people in the EU that would adore a United European State. I also have no doubt they're going to perpetually disappointed.

Finally, regarding Brexit the Movie... Whilst I'm sure the movie will raise points of interest, I'm also fully aware that the director is Martin Durkin, who produced one of the most misleading pieces of shit imaginable in 'the Great Global Warning Swindle'. 

As said, I'm not out to argue the toss with Awol, neither mind will change so there's no need for a back and forth. Just a few points.