E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

In reality they are more like warnings from the people that you will be trying to get good deals from in the future.

 

Yeah, but we won't hold that against you.

You can get personal but that does not obfuscate the fact that you still have not told me your idea of how a Brexit would work or would solve the problems you see with being in the EU. I'll take that to mean that you don't really know, and this is just a rage quit vote.

EDIT: but it looks that finally, Vote Leave is starting to lift the veil:

I wonder how he plans to do that while still being in the EU?

So: we'll still have Cameron in charge and negotiating a Brexit, a happily re-united Tory government (as I predicted) pushing ahead with TTIP and its Austerity agenda, still empty promises about immigration reduction and the UK still being in the EU for a long time "while getting the negotiations right". Seems I was worrying about nothing.

The EU referendum: political con of the century. Or: how to give an ignorant apathetic electorate the illusion of power.

 

Can't we just all agree on the Brexit 'debate' being mostly akin to a religious debate between believers and non-believers? The former being the ones who think that abandoning a union of hope founded among the ruins of WWII which they begged their way into during a decade.

This whole debate has gone far past merely a balancing of facts followed by a rational conclusion. As Nexxo already mentioned a few times so far, this has become a matter of pure emotion. There have been plenty of studies on the irrationality of humans (especially in crowds) when faced with issues.

I am hearing voices going up in the EU that we'll be fine if the UK were to leave. After all, the EU did fine for a decade without the UK (which was considered to be too poor to join). The EU will recover. The UK may not: shattering the UK and destroying its economy as it flounders in limbo, unable to join the WTO, unable to get trade agreements with the EU, US, etc.

While these voices may very well be right, many (including myself) would find it to be such a darn shame if such a decision were to be made based on emotions rather than reason. Thinking of the bitter disillusionment as UK nationals are forced to leave the EU or obtain non-UK nationalities, and EU nationals are forced to leave the UK. The exodus of the banking sector from London to Frankfurt, Paris and other EU cities.

It vaguely reminds me of the other setting of the Sun upon a once proud Empire.

 

Well you say that but they are, and vote leave do choose to ignore them, they exaggerate numbers to better serve their purpose, and some of what they claim is highly dependent on the intentions of the UK government, other things they say aren't based on any factual information whatsoever, some are outright wrong and still get peddled as "facts" even though they've been called misleading, some leave out key information so they portray a certain narrative.

At that point I'm giving up picking apart their claims as it seems very few of them are accurate and like everything a politician (from either end of the political spectrum and no matter who or what they support) tells you it needs to be checked, it needs to be viewed skeptically.

Yes both the official sides and politicians have distorted the "facts" to suit their narrative but as I've said all the information I've looked at paints a very bad picture of what a post leave UK would look like, that same information is available to everyone so you don't have to accept the politicians opinions on these subjects, you can form your own opinions based on, normally, the same information that the politicians have used.

So please, i beseech you, paint a positive picture of what a post leave UK would look like.

 

As I said niether side has shown any hard facts. Just predictions and random crap.

100% fact is something that would happen.

 

As Corky42 astutely observed, that will never happen. Under the strongly-worded accusations the Tory party is already pulling together: Gov and Johnson have ruled out a bid for leadership and Cameron has already stated he wants both to continue having a prominent role in government whatever happens.

Gove has just stated that the UK will not actually leave the EU by 2020, but that it will take "a long time" to make sure it "gets the negotiations right". Indeed Johnson said right at the beginning many months ago that he did not want to leave the EU really, but wanted to use the referendum as leverage to negotiate a better relationship with the EU.

As I said, once I calmed down a bit and took a meta-view I started to consider that the Tory party would never hand control of the future of Britain to the population (who it sees as a bunch of dumb hicks, and I'm starting to see their point) just like that. The referendum question is meticulously crafted to give the illusion of a momentous decision without actually offering any choice at all. In the end it will still be a united Tory party that will be in charge, and it will choose to interpret a vote to Leave in whatever way it suits (because let's face it, the electorate is not going to tell them). It will continue pursuing TTIP, it will continue using Austerity as a pretext to reduce public services, and it will continue using immigration as a scapegoat and promising to reduce it as it will continue making only token gestures to that effect.

So I envisage that the UK will be in the act of 'leaving' the EU (any time now!) for decades, whilst using this as leverage for continued influence in the EU to serve Tory business interests, not the British electorate. But the electorate by then will have turned its attention back to the perky tits of a barely legal girl on page 3 of their Murdoch empire-controlled tabloid while tutting about paedophiles on page 1 (Muslim ones, of course, because British culture doesn't produce such misogynist perverts). Nothing will actually change.

There's my Project Fear predictions. And it's scary because it's true.

 

Why does that give me such clear flashbacks to the final act of Nineteen Eighty-Four? Probably because of the utter fatalism that such a scenario conjures, I imagine. Those who are In Charge stipulate what the population consumes, thinks, breathes, drinks, etc., while any form of dissent is quickly silenced.

Airstrip One couldn't have been situated more perfectly, wouldn't you agree?

On a sidenote, I also stumbled over this article, which seems relevant to the discussion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...umbing-to-impulse-irritation-and-anger---and/

 

In a democracy people get the government they ask for.

"Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me..."

 

Very, does that mean if we (the UK) vote to leave it would be the biggest rage quit in history, I'm not sure we have a big enough K+M for that.

 

Well, keep in mind that a referendum is not legally binding. The government doesn't have to acknowledge its results. If the bottom threatens to fall out of the global market the government can choose to halt a Brexit in its tracks, and who could blame it?

 

Do you honestly think the government will stay in government if they choose to ignore the results of a vote of this magnitude?

 

Excuse me sir, The EU a holding closed door negotiations with corporate interests, NDA's are signed by all parties. We may have a government that wishes to be a part of it (they aren't), But once again, We can kick them out if the deceive us or don't deliver if we have control. "Ever closer Union" delivered by the Brussels untouchables will NOT permit that, In any way whatsoever.
TTIP will be dished out to all member states after the ink is dry, both the consequences good or bad and the laws to protect it.
How can anyone honestly say this is good for the UK or any other EU member nation for that matter.
For the folks at home, a quick briefing on TTIP, I suggest all watch this

I challenge you on your facts here, My parents generation were sold a trade act, not a political union leading to totalitarian superstate. The public were never consulted on Maastricht or on Lisbon, I am afraid you are gravely incorrect.
Take a look at the timeline of treaties (in the first link):

Maastricht Treaty

Lisbon Treaty

As you say, To hell with the public for not paying attention to something they were not being informed about probably beacause they were distracted with things like working, wars, football and celeb culture. You sound arrogant there btw.

Well, It wasn't Gordon Brown who first wanted the UK into the Euro, It was this cretin:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+did+blair+promise+euro+referendum/558277.html

Gordon Brown would have committed political suicide (not just in the UK) if he had chucked a referendum into the mix, Why hold something you can't win. The fact he thinks we should remain part of something that will devour every aspect of our lives is testament. A remain vote IS the green light the EU wants for "Ever closer Union", everyone needs to be aware of this.
If we remain, the euro will replace the pound sometime in the near future and traitors in Westminster know this.
With the luck of the EU treaty signings (Maastricht and Lisbon) being signed at the time of financial crisis 1992 and 2008, I would go as far as to predict or wager a sum that a huge financial crisis will be a precursor to Britain adopting the Euro, Maybe Ladbrokes will make me a bet.

Really, So when the electorate informs itself with the views that differ, you ask them to listen to the facts and people who they know are career liars?
As I highlighted, institutions and politicians that back remain have been wrong in the past and wrong in their predictions of the future. Maybe that's why they are forced to say "we have to vote with what feels right", It's easier than saying "we have been wrong before".

You know what, I appreciate your dedication and no doubt, hard work your doing for our country and the NHS. I honestly don't know why you are worried about a leave vote, As if your going to be asked to leave, As if anybody that contributes to our economy would be asked to leave. Britain has always been fair in the past (before the EU), I'm sure that would never change. Especially when it comes to the NHS
Guess what, If we remain, we get to decide and make an informed decision on just what those rules are, via elected politicians with manifestos.
We have a housing crisis that isn't "rare", The sick, elderly and unemployed that are also not so "rare", I and others would like to see if the EU is spending where people can REALLY see and feel it.
You see if its not there, Then people will be inclined to see the EU only funds what the EU wants. Why hasn't the EU sent money over for say....hospital beds? We need those.
We are making cuts to essential services while sending money to the EU and the EU funds "rare" diseases in return, That boggles my mind.

First, Article 50
If you can't understand that when we decide what the rules for immigration are, we can control the effects, I don't know what will. It is really that simple and uncomplicated.
There are more EU migrants coming here that are not subject to points based checks, That will change. I have no doubt it will be non discriminatory for all, one system for all.

Don't mountain a molehill, from your source:

All citizenships: 630,000
British: 83,000
Non-British: 547,000
EU: 270,000
Non-EU: 277,000

A few thousand difference, the big difference is 270,000 are not subject to points based or checks. I won't even start on the unnacounted illegals But I will say they are usually employed by people who dodge tax and don't contribute.

Corky, I'll respond later, got my crap to sort out for work tommorow.

 

If the global market tanks, and there is a run on the banks and the pound plummets to alarmingly low values, I think that the public will be sufficiently distracted to not pay much attention to what happens to the Brexit anymore.

People are not paying attention to what is actually being promised with a Brexit now.

 

TTIP is mainly a UK government initiative. It is even in the Conservative manifesto. As Corky42 has already shown the EU is now planning not to sign up to TTIP as it doesn't like its conditions. But if the UK decides to go it alone you can bet this government will pursue TTIP with gusto. And once it is signed, successive governments cannot undo it, no matter how much the electorate would like it to.

So the electorate didn't know what the position was on the EU of the parties they voted into government over the last decades? Or of the MEPs they voted in? It didn't have a choice to vote for the Referendum Party in 1997?

Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere, BTW.

The UK has already opted out of the Euro and "Ever Closer Union". Now if y'all keep paying attention to who you vote into office, you will be fine.

Again, if the electorate pays attention to who it votes into office, it will be fine.

Of course Johnson, Gove and Farage are paragons of truth. No, perhaps the electorate should use its noggin and the vast independent informational resources on the internet and inform itself about how the EU works, what it has done for the UK, how the UK government has represented the electorate's interests, what a Brexit would actually look like and how it would work, and the background history of people like Gove (proponent of privatisation of the NHS) and Johnson (pushed accession of Turkey to the EU in 2010).

Anything else is junkie logic and victim mentality.

The housing crisis is the result of a deliberate UK governmental policy since "Right to Buy" was introduced back in the 80's. The EU has a £250 billion Junker Plan on Infrastructure that the UK government could apply for to build up to 160000 extra homes, all paid for by the European Investment Bank. The UK government is simply not applying for it. Doesn't fit into its liberal Conservative philosophy.

Cuts in health and social care are again a Tory austerity policy. The EU has no responsibility or role in that --although it has been funding a lot of your health care projects. The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) offer opportunities to NHS organisations to access EU funding in a range of areas; it has set aside £6 billion for this purpose for the UK alone.

Yeah, funny how the EU does not see it as its role to compensate for the consequences of deliberate health care policies by a government that its own electorate voted for --twice (because that would be undemocratic, no?).

Article 50 is just the basic process. It does not say anything about the goal. What will a Brexit look like? What relationship does Vote Leave propose to have instead? Who will negotiate that? What are they prepared to compromise on? What definitely not? How will that solve the problem of immigration? Of sovereignty? Of underfunded public services? I have been asking this since the beginning of this thread. And although I get a lot of angry retorts nobody has actually answered this question. Not in this thread, and not in the campaign. And that alone should worry you.

You can already decide the rules for non-EU immigration. Seriously, you can do whatever you want with them --and you do. You have a points-based system; you are now refusing residency to non-EU immigrants who earn less than £35000,-- a year. Has that lowered the numbers? Nope, over half of your immigration is by non-EU immigrants.

Turns out it's not that simple and uncomplicated. Read the Flexcit proposal by the Leave Alliance (they're pro-Leave, so you can't complain about them being biased against you) for an analysis of migratory dynamics and how individual governments really have not much control over that. Page 123 onwards; especially chapter 7.4. They are also the only group who have a proposal for what a workable Brexit would look like, so that's nice. Perhaps you ought to read what you may be signing up to.

I agree that immigration needs to be managed sensibly, but no Brexiteer has actually put forward any plausible proposal how to do that (not even the Flexcit proposal considers it is possible to exert direct influence, focusing more on a very long term economic plan). I also do not read any credible proposal on how it will benefit the economy and I'm not sure how a proportional-representation-elected EU is supposed to be less democratic than a first-past-the-post elected House of Commons, and an appointed PM and House of Lords.

Ironically you stand a better chance of addressing immigration problems within the EU than outside of it.

 

It's as simple as this.

The real enemy is corporate interest, which is eroding our rights globally. They find separate jurisdictions extremely advantageous, as it allows them to play countries against each other.

Therefore we need a framework to fight back. As corrupt as the EU is can be reformed, and it will be a lot easier to understand and curtail the incumbent power within a legal hub and spoke system, rather than the exponential increase of separate individual interactions.

 

If you happen to have a link for that I'd like to see it.

Ironically, the Greek government intended to do exactly the same with their referendum last year. Leverage or not, they ended up getting pulverised in the negotiations and went entirely against what the referendum result mandated, to the point of accepting worse terms than those the referendum rejected in the first place.

 

No it wasn't, John Major's Conservative government were the first ones who wanted to sign us up to the single currency, something they were only prevented from doing by Labour, Liberal Democrats and a sprinkling of rebels from within their own party supported by Margret Thatcher.

Here's a radical thought, how about you stop listening to the opinions of politicians, institutions and career liars that you (rightly) have so much disdain for, how about you stop depending on them to tell you what to think, what you should do and how to vote, how about making up your own mind and forming your own opinions.

 

Here you are.

And here Boris Johnson said:

As for the Greeks: perhaps they shouldn't effectively have used Germany's credit card (making use of the cheap loans available tomthe EU after joining in 2001) to go on a spending spree. Until 2008 their government kind of bribed voters with lavish pensions and tax exemptions while it is also well-known that the Greeks regard paying taxes as an optional lifestyle choice. With global financial markets still reeling, Greece then announced in October 2009 that it had been understating its deficit figures for years, raising alarms about the soundness of Greek finances. This caused a crisis in confidence in its economy which had an eyewatering deficit.

TL;DR: Greece's mess is of their own making. Now the ECB, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission has had to bail them out to the tune of £169 billion and they are still being pissy.

 

Greece's problems started way before they joined the single currency, the short version is because they didn't meet the criteria for joining they manipulated the figures, probably hoping it would fix their long term problems, joining the single currency was little more than a sticking plaster that helped in covering up the real problems a short while.

 

Whilst you often tote that phrase around it doesn't apply in a first past the post system. In first past the post you get the government that the largest single group voted for. The largest group usually does not consist of the majority of the people. You can only really swing that one around in a system that uses proportional representation.