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

[ROTTERDAM1982]

That encapsulates to me Chindie why the EU long-term is certain to fail.There is going to be too many decisions made on nationalistic interests.The "sausage" example shows that, even on such small matters whoie pan-European consensus would be at best difficult, so how will it be when decisions have to be made about interest rates, and taxes, especially as the likelihood is that a vote Remain will lead to a push for a more federal Europe.

 

I actually think that a vote to remain will create a more volatile, divided Europe.An acceptance of differences, and local idiosycrancies and interests, with an ability to make national decisions, would imho lead to a more stable Europe.

[MakemineVanilla]

Anyone who believes in democracy and that democracy should be transparent and accountable to the voter, should vote to leave.

Anyone who felt any level of disgust and outage at the MP's expenses scandal should vote to leave, or find themselves condoning far worse in Europe.

Anyone weighing up their decision based upon some vague personal cost benefit analysis is really just putting a price on their right to vote.

But beyond these abstract principles, there is a tendency to over-estimate the power and value of an individual single vote, especially if you believe most voters are not motivated by rationality.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

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.

Understand you don't want a back and forth so I won't be crushed if you don't reply, however more than 50 none EU countries have FTA's with the EU. Those are simple trade only relationships with none of the political gubbins that come with Single Market membership. That is what I believe the UK should go for, not full access to the single market a la Norway with all that entails. 

Finally for the benefit of other posters I'd simply ask why a block designed for trade requires the integration and common command of its various members armed forces?

 Germany to push for progress towards European Army   - Lots of links to this story but I went for the FT because it's so screamingly europhile in outlook.

Germany is to push for progress towards a European army by advocating a joint headquarters and shared military assets, according to defence plans that could ricochet into Britain’s EU referendum campaign.

Although Berlin has long paid lip-service to forming a “European defence union”, the white paper is one of the most significant for Germany in recent years and may be seized by anti-integration Brexit campaigners as a sign where the bloc is heading.

 

Initially scheduled to emerge shortly before the June 23 referendum vote but now probably delayed to July, the draft paper seen by the Financial Times outlines steps to gradually co-ordinate Europe’s patchwork of national militaries and embark on permanent co-operation under common structures.

In this and other areas, its tone reflects Germany’s growing clout and confidence in pursuing a foreign policy backed by elements of hard power. Initiatives range from strengthening cyberwarfare abilities to contentious proposals to relax the postwar restrictions on army operations within Germany.

Only countries have armies, not trading blocks. In addition it's a direct challenge to NATO and specifically the American military lead in Europe. They are the people we really rely on for collective defence, not the largely symbolic post Cold War militaries of Continental Europe. 

For the avoidance of doubt Jean Monnet, the father of the EU (and incidentally big pals with the CIA) had this to say on the subject of integration: Link 

Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.

Why people in the UK who know this still try to deny it is beyond reason, imho.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Anyone who believes in democracy and that democracy should be transparent and accountable to the voter, should vote to leave.

Anyone who felt any level of disgust and outage at the MP's expenses scandal should vote to leave, or find themselves condoning far worse in Europe.

Anyone weighing up their decision based upon some vague personal cost benefit analysis is really just putting a price on their right to vote.

But beyond these abstract principles, there is a tendency to over-estimate the power and value of an individual single vote, especially if you believe most voters are not motivated by rationality.

When my current MP was a lowly Assembly Member he took expenses to rent a property in Cardiff Bay because the commute home (11 miles) was considered too arduous. For his troubles, he's now been voted in as an MP and has now become Wales Secretary, with a substantial listed property at his disposal in Westminster. What exactly does the 'Wales Office' do?

How we stop all this waste and actually make all these layers upon layers accountable and honest is a massive issue we need to address. In every last tier of government.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Anyone who believes in democracy and that democracy should be transparent and accountable to the voter, should vote to leave.

Anyone who felt any level of disgust and outage at the MP's expenses scandal should vote to leave, or find themselves condoning far worse in Europe.

Anyone weighing up their decision based upon some vague personal cost benefit analysis is really just putting a price on their right to vote.

But beyond these abstract principles, there is a tendency to over-estimate the power and value of an individual single vote, especially if you believe most voters are not motivated by rationality.

Wind your neck in. 

EDIT: To elaborate on why this pisses me off so intensely, I work in an industry that's likely to be extremely badly impacted by Brexit, with my own job decidedly at risk. That would put to an end a seven year career and a deeply arduous qualification I spent thousands on last year would be utterly pointless. But considering this is 'putting a price on my right to vote' apparently. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

47 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I work in an industry that's likely to be extremely badly impacted by Brexit, with my own job decidedly at risk. That would put to an end a seven year career and a deeply arduous qualification I spent thousands on last year would be utterly pointless. But considering this is 'putting a price on my right to vote' apparently. 

Don't be so selfish Hanoi, the flag wavers are worried about Hitler and Napoleon as well as immigrants today.

Anyway, apparently nothing will change for anyone with work that involves export or any sort of international trade and communication. The only change will be that we will be free and everything will be just better.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Wind your neck in. 

EDIT: To elaborate on why this pisses me off so intensely, I work in an industry that's likely to be extremely badly impacted by Brexit, with my own job decidedly at risk. That would put to an end a seven year career and a deeply arduous qualification I spent thousands on last year would be utterly pointless. But considering this is 'putting a price on my right to vote' apparently. 

MMV's first two highlighted paragraphs (by you) are demonstrably true, the EU by design makes a mockery of democracy, there is little to no transparency or accountability and that in turn leads to corruption. 

The third para is brutally blunt and although logically correct, people clearly won't vote against their own perceived best interests, and why should you? The greater good is all rosy in the abstract but when it's your paycheck that's different. 

Ultimately it depends what matters more to an individual, the gradual exclusion of their own small voice from the democratic process, or the financial gain they may receive for acquiescing to that process. If you have a family to support that's a grim call to make, as it is designed to be.

A natiralised Brit called Janet Daley put it very succinctly in Brexit The Movie; The EU is designed to ensure the mass of the people can never again seize control of the democratic process and elect another Hitler, hence rule by an elite unencumbered by or accountable to voters. 

The European Commission is effectively the old Soviet Politburo model rebadged. 

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Wind your neck in. 

EDIT: To elaborate on why this pisses me off so intensely, I work in an industry that's likely to be extremely badly impacted by Brexit, with my own job decidedly at risk. That would put to an end a seven year career and a deeply arduous qualification I spent thousands on last year would be utterly pointless. But considering this is 'putting a price on my right to vote' apparently. 

Most grown-ups understand that in the real world sometimes pragmatic choices have to be taken, which conflict with our beliefs and principles.

No one is going to blame you for voting out of your own self-interest, because you have no choice.

The only cost is that once you have voted out of self-interest you can't really criticise anyone else who does the same.

A small but necessary price to pay I would have thought.

[OutByEaster?]

Democracy as a route to true power is on the wane - true power no longer belongs with nations, it belongs with banks and those that own and manage them.

The EU is undemocratic and unrepresentative, those that extol the virtues of Brexit are absolutely right about that - and indeed this European Union is massively flawed, it was founded to ensure stability in the interests of the US and like that nation has been subverted to the whim of the corporate entities that now run it. The problem is, our government is the same, if our government was more open to change, more open to possibility, then I'd be out of Europe like a shot - but we're not, not really, the media, the mechanism's of our society are now under the control of those who control our government - you can vote for who you like, it's not going to change the reality of the world unless a bundle of people are suddenly educated.

Where Europe has an advantage is that it's chaotic, it's a hodge-podge of lots of different nations and interests, in the confusion, it's sometimes possible to push through a change or a regulation in spite of the banks, in spite of the lobbyists, without the representation that makes up our national government, it's somehow more susceptible to the will of the people. Parliament isn't, it's locked down, organised, tight - nothing gets through or out or around the ruling presence.

Ideally I'd want out of both, but the EU is more of a mess. On that basis, I'm in.

 

[OutByEaster?]

Also "Brexit: The movie", really? 

[chrisp65]

Jacob Rees Mogg on the telly now, jumping to Boris' defence and pointing out that King Louis of Spain 1707 to 1724 also wanted a United States of Europe.

Such a farce of a 'debate'. 

[Awol]

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Also "Brexit: The movie", really? 

Have you watched it yet, in fact has anyone on VT watched and if so what did you think? 

I do like the fact that over 50% of the production cost was crowd funded - with the rest donated by the tycoon Aaron Banks.  It is is quite amateurish in parts but also has some very effective sequences and raises questions worth considering.

It's also quite a contrast with Britain Stronger in Europe, funded to the tune of millions by Citibank, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, a.k.a. the four horseman of the financial apocalypse.  Kinda reinforces your second post (if not your conclusion) about democracy, the banks and where power lies. As the old saying goes, 'follow the money'.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Awol
To add

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Have you watched it yet, in fact has anyone on VT watched and if so what did you think? 

I'll admit, I immediately went and watched the opening two minutes when I posted the exclamation. It looked like an extended party political broadcast and opened with an emotive and fearful dark tone of the gathering menace - I gave up on that basis. I may not have given it a fair chance, I suspect I saw enough.

Your point about the funding remains true, the problem being that the campaign to stay in is being funded by the very people that exercise that control over democratic process and public bodies.

The problem I have is that this is also the official line of our elected democratic body, who are almost completely controlled by those banks. There isn't really an out vote. We can vote to remain in an EU that's controlled by banks under a government that's controlled by those same banks or we can vote to leave the EU and be directly controlled by a government controlled by those banks. For me the case for staying in is that the EU is such a diverse and chaotic organisation that it makes it harder for those banks to completely keep a control over what it's doing - it's disruptive. 

I could still be convinced to vote out, if out was for the right reasons, I have no real belief in the value of nationhood or sovereignty, I'm not "In" on the basis that I need to stay "British". I'd like to be part of a fairer, more equitable global society that has at its heart values that appreciate people over profit, but this vote doesn't really offer that - so I'll go with the weaker of the two means of the oppressor - the less effective of the two means of governance and control.

 

[chrisp65]

I've managed 2 minutes 6 seconds of 'Brexit'.

So which side is running 'project fear'? Apparently Europe is a basket case about to collapse in to evil planned dictatorship and we have one last chance to escape doom and destruction. BUT! If we vote leave we can be wealthy and prosperous beyond our wildest dreams. All with brooding music and scenes of fascist gangs running riot. Then we get Nigel Lawson, friend of the people.

Does it get a bit more sensible, or is that basically it? I'll have another go later. I'll give it another 5 minutes to calm down, stop shaking, and inform me of something other than apocalypes vs milk n honey.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I refuse to watch anything by the shameless propagandist that is Martin Durkin. Much in the same way that I don't bother with crackpot youtube videos, or recent day Michael Moore.

If you are going to inform, do it responsibly.

Edited May 16, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[MakemineVanilla]

 

[lapal_fan]

The more I hear/read about it, the more and more obvious it is that people shouldn't decide on it.

Both parties are getting increasingly more spiteful, the language used from each side is more repugnant/sarcastic/dismissive/fear in-sighting.. It's just such a huge issue. 

I'll be voting (for myself just so it happens), but this referendum is a huge mistake.

[Awol]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'll admit, I immediately went and watched the opening two minutes when I posted the exclamation. It looked like an extended party political broadcast and opened with an emotive and fearful dark tone of the gathering menace - I gave up on that basis. I may not have given it a fair chance, I suspect I saw enough.

Fair enough, if you want to understand the broad strokes of the Leave argument it's worth an hour and won't poison your soul, if not I'd go for pornhub while you still can - if the country votes out of political union we're all going to die anyway, according to Dave. 

Latest Remain scare story (from a Home Office Minister no less) is the possible deportation of 3 million EU citizens post a Brexit, despite the 'acquired rights' of all Europeans being protected under the Vienna Conventions (1967).

The Government knows full well they are telling bare faced lies which will terrify some people, it's the most sustained bout of official dishonesty since Iraq. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Awol
Speelong

[snowychap]

36 minutes ago, Awol said:

despite the 'acquired rights' of all Europeans being protected under the Vienna Conventions (1967)

As per the previous discussion, it depends what rights those citizens have already acquired, surely?

Edit:

An alternative point of view on the Brexit/Vienna Convention issue:

Quote

READERS have contacted Connexion asking whether the 1969 Vienna Convention would protect ‘acquired rights’ for estimated half a million Britons living in France in the event of a Brexit – experts we consulted say it would not.

We cover the issue of what may happen in a potential Brexit in our new April edition – on sale in newsagents from this Friday or as a downloadable version at this link, (priced €3.80).

However we explain here that none of the three experts we consulted – an experienced international lawyer and two university law specialists – thought any rights relating to matters like benefits, pensions or healthcare would be protected by the Vienna Convention, with possible exceptions for residence rights or the right not to have a work contract terminated.

This is despite the fact that the convention has been cited in the UK press and by campaigners for Britain to leave as guaranteeing that nothing would change for expatriates already making use of their EU free movement rights to live in France if a Brexit took place. According to estimates by the British embassy in Paris there may be 4-500,000 Britons living in France (among more than two million who are thought to live outside the UK in the EU as whole).

The convention, which was brokered by the United Nations, sets out rules to be respected with regard to international treaties, and, at article 70, states that, unless the parties agree otherwise, if a treaty is ended or changed (as in the UK withdrawing from membership of the founding EU treaties) this does not affect any right or obligation of the parties that were created due to the treaty before it came to an end.

On the face of it, this appears important, especially because nothing in the actual EU treaties themselves states that any 'vested' rights acquired during the treaties would continue after leaving, according the House of Commons Library (Exiting the EU: UK reform proposals, legal impact and alternatives to membership, February 12, 2016): “Unlike many international treaties, there is no ‘survival clause’ with rules on the protection of acquired rights of British citizens.”

So, can the Vienna Convention help? All other considerations aside, it should firstly be noted that France was the only UN state to vote against it and it did not sign it. Although the Conseil Constitutionnel says France considers itself bound by many of its main dispositions, this fact in itself is a reason to be cautious about relying on it, Connexion was told.

An international and European law specialist from Nantes University, Renan Le Mestre, said he did not think that invoking the convention was “useful” with regard to expats’ rights.

“If the UK leaves the EU, the rights that people are concerned about may be maintained in the context of an agreement negotiated with the EU or a bilateral treaty with France. Without such a legal basis they would cease to have their effect,” he said. (It should be noted that, naturally, anything agreed in such treaties for British expats would have to apply reciprocally to either EU citizens or French people in the UK).

He said this is partly because the convention concerns rights of one state to another, and it would be difficult for a member of the public to rely on it in a court of law concerning their individual rights.

Dr Le Mestre thought it could not be relied on even for the right of residence. “The right to free movement and to live in other parts of the union is all linked to European citizenship; if that citizenship falls away, so do these rights,” he said.

However he said that Britons living in France for more than five years who have, as is their right as EU citizens, obtained a permanent residence permit from their prefecture (carte de séjour UE – séjour permanent) might be able to make use of that, as a matter of national French law, as evidence they have acquired a right to stay in France. “Obtaining one, as a matter of caution, would be preferable,” he said. (Usually, however British expats do not follow this formality because EU citizens have no need of such a permit to remain in France).

An experienced international lawyer confirmed to Connexion that the convention, strictly speaking, is about obligations of states to each other. “Nothing in it actually refers to individuals,” he said.

He said it is possible that residence rights of existing expats might be seen as treaty obligations from one state to another.

However he added: “I strongly believe that speculation as to what may happen, based on Vienna, may ultimately prove to be dangerously misleading.”

What is more most of the rights expats rely on – on pensions and healthcare etc - do not derive directly from the founding EU treaties, but from various regulations and directives, he said.

The London School of Economics’ professor of EU law, Damian Chalmers, said: “Basically, this argument of acquired rights for expatriates has nothing going for it.

“At the moment, for example, there is a right for Britons to work or reside in France under the EU treaty, but if that ends then who knows what the future will be.”

Acquired rights protected under the convention in the event of a Brexit would be limited to such areas as patents, contracts and property rights, he said.

He added: “As far as Connexion readers go, my view is it’s highly likely that a freeze on the rights will be agreed for a few years because no one really has an interest in cancelling each other’s citizens’ rights.

“Britain doesn’t want its citizens to be made vulnerable, nor does it look good to start bullying French citizens who’ve been in the UK 15 years and say ‘you can’t remain’.

“So it comes down to what is politically realistic, not what is legally entrenched. And what is realistic is to seek arrangements that don’t cause huge disruption and suffering; so I think expats will not be told to up sticks and leave.

“However it probably wouldn’t be as good for British residents in France as it is now – for example there could be restrictions on British pensioners using the French health service and perhaps on access to certain other benefits that are costly to the French state. And I do not think there would be any exportability of UK disability benefits. The possibility of British pensions being frozen is also something I would be concerned about as a British resident in France.

“But if those arguing for a Brexit are relying on acquired rights, that does not exist. It’s a nonsense argument.”

He said, however, the right to not have an existing work contract terminated would probably be an ‘acquired right’, as would, in his view, a residence right based on a UE – séjour permanent permit.

Prof Chalmers said some people in favour of a Brexit had cited the House of Commons Library as having said the convention gave vested rights, however he said this referred to a 2013 document (‘Leaving the EU’), which had merely raised the possibility of vested rights arising due to the convention as something to think about as part of the debate. However he said the body’s February 2016 publication on the topic does not confirm this to be true.

Along with the issue of the convention, some commentators believe that we can look to Greenland as a precedent for what would happen in a Brexit, however this comparison is also unlikely to lessen the uncertainty.

Greenland - with a population of around 50,000 - left the EU’s forerunner the EEC after it gained home rule from Denmark in 1979; however it remained an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which remained.

The House of Commons Library notes in its briefing papers that at that time the European Commission argued that there should be transitional arrangements allowing the “extremely small number” of foreign workers in Greenland to maintain their main rights (the commission did not mention if any workers from Greenland should retain theirs in EU states).

It adds however that “it is arguable this whole situation is scarcely relevant”, because this was long ago, there was the link with Denmark – Greenland remained an ‘overseas country and territory’ of the EU - and negotiations over Greenland’s exit revolved mostly around fish.
 

I've highlighted what I reckon is the most pertinent part of the piece (i.e. what I think would be most likely in the event of a vote to leave).

Edited May 16, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Ha ha. In what world does taking Ed Bollocks away from Celeb bake off/Norwich to help argue your case make sense?