[1eyedjack]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-10, 09:02, said:

Most Europeans are savvy enough to know that losing the EU's second-largest net contributor would be bad for them.

And yet they were only too happy to engage in brinkmanship when Cameron went over to negotiate a "new deal" a couple of months back. They may yet come to regret that intransigence, if so.

On the other hand, if we stay in by a whisker, hearty congratulations to them on their astute prognosis, even if they did risk much in the process.

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2016-June-10, 09:37, said:

And yet they were only too happy to engage in brinkmanship when Cameron went over to negotiate a "new deal" a couple of months back. They may yet come to regret that intransigence, if so.

On the other hand, if we stay in by a whisker, hearty congratulations to them on their astute prognosis, even if they did risk much in the process.

Yes, I was going to add something along these lines. I was also surprised that Cameron didn't get more, and figured that it must have been that the EU were calling what they thought was a bluff. I fervently hope that it is not so, but the betting markets are scary.

[shyams]

Regardless of my personal choice to vote "Remain", what I find incredibly annoying is the inanity of the debate/discussion process within the UK Establishment.

1. The decision to leave or remain impacts the political, economic, and societal structure of the UK for decades. Yet, the powers that be tend to focus on likely impacts over a much shorter horizon (sometimes as short as 3-4 weeks). It would be ridiculous to base long-term decisions based on immediate impacts.
An acquaintance recently used an analogy of a decision of moving to a new house. He said "It's like you decide not to go ahead with the move simply because you cannot tolerate the idea of eating pizzas for the first couple of days while your belongings are being unpacked at the new premises"

2. The entire debate is centred around the establishment of "facts", rather than the creation of (for want of a better word) "philosophy".

3. As with any political debate, the focus of both the media and the politicians is to score political brownie points. There are discussions about which side won the argument! As if that really matters in the grand scheme of things...

All in all, it is a decision where many voters (including myself) will be choosing to vote leave or remain based on "gut feel". I would have preferred to get to choose between two well-articulated visions/ philosophies.

[Aberlour10]

There is another aspect of the "leave" case. The relationsships between GB and EU, [especially economical] will become new defiinitions the day after, Many commentators here expect a hardline positions by the EU in this negotiations. This is a precedent in the history of the EU and the remaining states could make an example on GB, to avoid this case will become follower in the future.

[mike777]

Again I note a strong lack of why one should vote to stay...in fact i cannot find any reason from posters to stay or leave.


Again I just note from you posters a lack of passion in either direction.
----------


Again if you believe that if the Uk leaves the EU there will be war, many many more wars in Europe, ok


But I dont see posters saying that.

OTOH I dont see posters saying there will if the UK stays you and your children will be in less war.
---------


I live in America but you guys live there and seem to say nothing


Do you and your children, your grandchildren see a duty to defend the EU? If no duty , ok. If you and your loved ones see no duty ... If you do not teach your children and grandchildren that they have a duty....fair enough.



Frankly the rest of these posts are just pissing in the wind and waiting to see what direction it blows.

[shyams]

mike777, on 2016-June-13, 00:52, said:

Again I note a strong lack of why one should vote to stay...in fact i cannot find any reason from posters to stay or leave.


Again I just note from you posters a lack of passion in either direction.
----------


Again if you believe that if the Uk leaves the EU there will be war, many many more wars in Europe, ok


But I dont see posters saying that.

OTOH I dont see posters saying there will if the UK stays you and your children will be in less war.
---------


I live in America but you guys live there and seem to say nothing


Do you and your children, your grandchildren see a duty to defend the EU? If no duty , ok. If you and your loved ones see no duty ... If you do not teach your children and grandchildren that they have a duty....fair enough.



Frankly the rest of these posts are just pissing in the wind and waiting to see what direction it blows.

Why do you feel like we care what you think? Or that the questions posed by you are relevant and deserve a response?

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-June-13, 00:52, said:

Again I note a strong lack of why one should vote to stay...in fact i cannot find any reason from posters to stay or leave.

The main reason to stay is that the vast majority of economists believe leaving will be harmful to the economy. The main reason to leave is a fear of immigration. That is basically the whole debate in a nutshell.

[helene_t]

Personally I don't think the economy, immigration and security will be affected much. I am mostly pro remain because of environmental, worker protection and consumer protection issues. But ok my opinion doesn't matter as I can't vote.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on 2016-June-13, 06:47, said:

I am mostly pro remain because of environmental, worker protection and consumer protection issues. But ok my opinion doesn't matter as I can't vote.

These are issues which a local national government should be perfectly capable of implementing without the need to be a member of EU. If it chooses otherwise then hopefully that is the will of the electorate. Of course you could be a minority in the electorate, which would enhance the justification for voting to stay in the EU.

Arguments put forward along these lines tend to be based on the general theme "Current EU policy is more closely aligned with my personal preferences than is the policy of the current national policy of the moment." Both are subject to potential change over the years, and indeed national governments can change hands in fairly short measure.

I was slightly bemused by Corbyn's argument for staying in EU on the grounds that it would protect workers' rights. What, protect them more than Labour securing victory in a general election? Or maybe he has already given up on that prospect as a possibility.

[helene_t]

You have a valid point but social/environmental dumping is a bigger problem when regulations are left to the national govts.

[Al_U_Card]

United we stand, divided we fall. Sound familiar? When smaller states band together, like a co-op or other economic union, they gain mass and influence at the cost of internecine rivalries and conflicts of interest on a regional basis. The EU needs GB to strengthen its situation globally as well as serving to maintain mastery over the PIGS. DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES seems like Merkel's motivation but GB's interests are somewhat more tenuous. Finances will tell and if GB sees economic advantage either way then that will be borne out in the longer term. The bureaucratic overload and sovereignty issues notwithstanding.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-13, 07:24, said:

to maintain mastery over the PIGS. DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES

Errrrr, ok mate. You might want to read the conditions of usage and step away from the meds before your next post...

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2016-June-13, 06:47, said:

Personally I don't think the economy, immigration and security will be affected much. I am mostly pro remain because of environmental, worker protection and consumer protection issues. But ok my opinion doesn't matter as I can't vote.

I think that the UK exceeds EU standards on these issues.

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-13, 07:24, said:

United we stand, divided we fall. Sound familiar? When smaller states band together, like a co-op or other economic union, they gain mass and influence at the cost of internecine rivalries and conflicts of interest on a regional basis.

May be true but irrelevant. This is not what the EU is.

Quote

The EU needs GB to strengthen its situation globally

Could be, but the question is whether the UK needs the EU.

[kenberg]

I am an observer, not informed enough to have an opinion. I found the article cited below of interest and I wonder if anyone would care to comment.

I was aware that Norway was not in the EU and is doing ok. Of course oil helps, and I suppose it helps even with the lower price it now goes for.
Norway is in the European Economic Area (I mention this for my fellow Americans who perhaps, like me, did not know this). Apparently the Norwegian PM would prefer to be in the UK, but the voters disagree, and pretty overwhelmingly.

Anyway, I would be interested in comments.



https://www.washingt...28d2_story.html

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-13, 14:01, said:

I think that the UK exceeds EU standards on these issues.

My previous employer was the now privatized Food and Environment research agency, i.e. the arm of the british government responsible for manufacturing pseudo-scientific evidence to support the government's industry-sponsored environmental policies. We have reached the point where other European environmental research organizations ignore everything that comes out of FERA because it is known to be 100% politics and 0% science. Bee-killing pesticides may be the only of those stories that went viral but the problem is structural.

The British governement's stand on internet privacy and net neutrality is disgusting.

On both of these issues I believe EU is a moderating factor.

UK has just about the lowest benefits in Western Europe. But OK, it is possible that EU can't do anything about that.

I hear a lot about what EU has done to improve worker's rights. I don't know the details though, I might be listening to biased sources here.

[shyams]

kenberg, on 2016-June-13, 15:35, said:

I was aware that Norway was not in the EU and is doing ok. Of course oil helps, and I suppose it helps even with the lower price it now goes for.
Norway is in the European Economic Area (I mention this for my fellow Americans who perhaps, like me, did not know this). Apparently the Norwegian PM would prefer to be in the UK, but the voters disagree, and pretty overwhelmingly.

Anyway, I would be interested in comments.

Yes, Norway has to abide by most of the EU regulations without getting much of a say in the definition of the regulations. However, it's probably not as bad as some Norwegian politians would like to depict. In the end, a politician's default position is to feel aggreived if she/he is left out of a supermassive junket with "politicking" as the main course and lavish parties & treats as desserts.

An issue for Norway is that it's not big enough to have a clout within the EU, even if it were in it. Ask the Dutch how much their government shapes EU policies (miniscule) vs. obeys EU policies (quite diligently). In contrast, the UK is massive in terms of proportion of EU economy, EU population, political clout (UK has loads of "soft power" in the world), and intra-EU clout (i.e. ability to resist excesses of the EU political machinery).

A Brexit will be a huge blow to the EU (even if they pretend like they will be unaffected). And many countries in the EU know it... The unfortunate part is, when it comes to any multilateral negotiations, every country in the EU is busy trying to get the best cuts of meat -- even when no country offers to go hunt for meat. It's not their fault, really -- it's that the EU machinery is designed such that countries are required to fight for every concession, every right, before it ever gets included into EU common policy. Finally, if UK actually votes to Leave, the very politicians who humiliated David Cameron repeatedly during the so-called "UK's reform deal with EU" will come to rue the day they forgot to look at the big picture.

Another discordant feature of the EU is the disproportionate power wielded by the three main countries (Germany, France, UK). In a democracy, rights and powers are (meant to be ) commensurate to population size. Germany is 11% of EU population -- yet, it probably holds ~50% of the political power. Angela Merkel was, for all practical purposes, the person who decided how the whole of the EU deals with Greece (during their ongoing "default" scenarios). I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who know the name of Germany's Finance Minister (Wolfgang Schäuble) can name the French counterpart.

If Brexit does occur, it will not be long before the rest of the EU establishment is brought to its knees --- both from within (i.e. national governments defying the EU) and from outside (financial markets tearing the Euro to shreds). One hopes the EU survives this ordeal...

[shyams]

helene_t, on 2016-June-13, 15:55, said:

My previous employer was the now privatized Food and Environment research agency, i.e. the arm of the british government responsible for manufacturing pseudo-scientific evidence to support the government's industry-sponsored environmental policies. We have reached the point where other European environmental research organizations ignore everything that comes out of FERA because it is known to be 100% politics and 0% science. Bee-killing pesticides may be the only of those stories that went viral but the problem is structural.

The British governement's stand on internet privacy and net neutrality is disgusting.

On both of these issues I believe EU is a moderating factor.

UK has just about the lowest benefits in Western Europe. But OK, it is possible that EU can't do anything about that.

I hear a lot about what EU has done to improve worker's rights. I don't know the details though, I might be listening to biased sources here.

I agree with Helene that (a portion) the EU is both a moderating factor and a force for good. For example,
* It is the EU's insistence on urban environmental standards that has compelled the UK government to find ways to reduce urban pollution levels.
* The EU has been a powerful force that faced up to, and often defeated, global giants like Microsoft or Google.
* There are numerous examples of the EU blocking mergers and acquisitions that are bad from a competition angle. And where the acquisitions were forced (e.g. Lloyds Banking Group taking over Halifax etc), the EU insisted on a spin-off within a suitable timeframe (which led to TSB - a spinoff bank of a set of ex-Lloyds Bank branches).
I'm sure there are many other areas that I haven't even considered....

The problem is that the EU has too many politicians, both those elected to the European Parliament, and those of the constituent nations who can exercise their power over the European bureaucracy. To a great extent, the politicians manage to defeat the bureaucrats --- in other words, the evil defeats the good. And it is highly unlikely the European Union will ever find a solution for this.

Will the UK be "poorer" if they were to leave the EU? I think we will. But what do I know? I can only cast ONE VOTE!

[Vampyr]

shyams, on 2016-June-13, 16:32, said:

Finally, if UK actually votes to Leave, the very politicians who humiliated David Cameron repeatedly during the so-called "UK's reform deal with EU" will come to rue the day they forgot to look at the big picture.

They will find it hilarious though if the vote is to remain after getting nothing.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on 2016-June-13, 06:47, said:

Personally I don't think the economy, immigration and security will be affected much.

Why do you think so about immigration? A large part of the motivation to vote for Brexit comes from the feeling that there is too much immigration. Much of the public debate centers around this question.
It would be illogical not to make it more difficult for EUROPEANS citizens to live in the EU after a vote for Brexit.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2016-June-14, 00:23, said:

Why do you think so about immigration? A large part of the motivation to vote for Brexit comes from the feeling that there is too much immigration. Much of the public debate centers around this question.
It would be illogical not to make it more difficult for EUROPEANS citizens to live in the EU after a vote for Brexit.

Over half of immigrants come from outside of the EU. If politicians really felt that it was a serious problem they could drastically reduce that amount. The truth is that every analysis done on the subject has shown that immigrants are a positive and necessary part of the UK economy. Migrants from every EU country, particularly Poland, are a net plus. The countries that are questionable to benefits, perhaps even negative, are Pakistan and most of the African nations.

So while the Leave side of the debate revolves around immigration, that feeds more on people's fears than having any real basis in tangible gains to be found.

Vampyr, on 2016-June-13, 14:01, said:

I think that the UK exceeds EU standards on these issues.

The statistics show that the UK government has lost 75% of cases brought to the EU court. Since Cameron was PM, that number has been 80%. Obviously many of these cases were not related to rights but certainly some are, for example when the UK tried to opt out of the Social Charter (protects inter alia working hours) in 1986. Similarly, cases of pay discrimination were practically impossible to bring in UK courts until the EU got involved - now this is routine. And talking of discrimination, the UK itself only created laws for gender and race. The rest (religion, sexuality age, etc) came from the EU. The EU also helps to protect the general rights of individuals, such as with the current case (against the UK government) relating to surveillance and the retention of data.

So no, neither historically nor currently can one say that the UK government is a beacon of light on the subject. And that would certainly not improve after a vote for Brexit!