BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ballysmate

The Dutch get to vote on Wednesday, but the subject is Ukraine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... l-38115720

earth

Rick Chasey wrote:

Couple things there.

Firstly - fairly loose interpretation of the word 'fact' there.

Secondly - when the video opens with referring to the EU as 'idiots' it's difficult to take it seriously...!

It was uploaded by an out supporter so the title represents their view but it is the content that counts. As the content is a university economics professor talking to a parliament select committee I think the content is relevant and to be considered.

earth

Ballysmate wrote:

finchy wrote:

Looking at the opinion polls, telephone polling, which tends to be more accurate than online polling, shows a large lead for the "In" camp. I just hope that all those supporters of EU membership bother to turn out on the day, because I'm sure the anti-EU turnout will be very high.

The country will vote to remain in. There always seems to be a general tilt towards the status quo in referenda, people shy away from change.
Even though I think the EU is deeply flawed, I will vote to stay in for the reasons given in the EU Poll thread.
We have been served a sh1t sandwich and we have just got to keep eating.

Voting in is not voting for the status quo. The eurozone is a train wreck and it will change in a big way. Exactly what it will become is unknown and that's what a vote to stay in is.

ballysmate

Article here about the young being the most enthusiastic 'inners' but the least likely to vote.
Curiously, according to this poll in the lefty bible, people have no clue on where the leader of HM Opposition stands on the issue.
If this is, as some people have commented, the most important issue we will face, you would have thought that he would have made his position crystal. After all, he is supposed to be a conviction politician.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... exit-leave

rick_chasey

He's quite publicly been anti but forced by his party to to tow the line.

ballysmate

Yes Rick. I know of his anti EU leanings, after all his mentor was AWB.
You would have thought though that someone who had eyes on being PM in 2020 would be expressing his position or be petitioned more for comment. Or have Labour managed to muzzle him somewhat because they realise how toxic he is? Or perhaps he is irrelevant.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Yes Rick. I know of his anti EU leanings, after all his mentor was AWB.
You would have thought though that someone who had eyes on being PM in 2020 would be expressing his position or be petitioned more for comment. Or have Labour managed to muzzle him somewhat because they realise how toxic he is? Or perhaps he is irrelevant.

I think that Labour are learning that the less Corbyn an his inner circle say on what they think and their policies the better. Lately they seem to have kept pretty quiet on their own policies, but there's already another thread for that.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Yes Rick. I know of his anti EU leanings, after all his mentor was AWB.
You would have thought though that someone who had eyes on being PM in 2020 would be expressing his position or be petitioned more for comment. Or have Labour managed to muzzle him somewhat because they realise how toxic he is? Or perhaps he is irrelevant.

I think that Labour are learning that the less Corbyn an his inner circle say on what they think and their policies the better. Lately they seem to have kept pretty quiet on their own policies, but there's already another thread for that.

Perhaps more to do with the Tories wanting to hog the lime light with their own internal problems and struggles ?

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Yes Rick. I know of his anti EU leanings, after all his mentor was AWB.
You would have thought though that someone who had eyes on being PM in 2020 would be expressing his position or be petitioned more for comment. Or have Labour managed to muzzle him somewhat because they realise how toxic he is? Or perhaps he is irrelevant.

I think that Labour are learning that the less Corbyn an his inner circle say on what they think and their policies the better. Lately they seem to have kept pretty quiet on their own policies, but there's already another thread for that.

Perhaps more to do with the Tories wanting to hog the lime light with their own internal problems and struggles ?

Doubt it. As lefties are always quick to point out, the so called right wing press will always do their thing when Corbyn says anything, so we can reaonably assume he is maximising his popularity by not saying anything about his own policies and views

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Yes Rick. I know of his anti EU leanings, after all his mentor was AWB.
You would have thought though that someone who had eyes on being PM in 2020 would be expressing his position or be petitioned more for comment. Or have Labour managed to muzzle him somewhat because they realise how toxic he is? Or perhaps he is irrelevant.

Broadly speaking every politician is irrelevant on this bar the PM.

He also has little interest in UK's role on the international scene. He's naturally fairly isolationist. He takes a fairly nuanced academic view which isn't all that shared, and he sees a lot of traps there both for him and the UK.

surrey_commuter

The paradox is that these clowns stumbling from crisis to crisis should encourage people to vote IN as our own leaders can not be trusted.

bobmcstuff

The IMF says it'll be bad for our economy and others, all board members agree: https://next.ft.com/content/ad066f38-00 ... 15a1aa2e62

"even assuming the UK remained in the EU, the impact of the debate had already knocked 0.3 percentage points off Britain’s forecast growth in 2016".

Yet to be convinced by any Leave arguments.

ballysmate

In 2008 Corbyn opposed his party to vote against implementing the EU's Lisbon Treaty and in 2011 he backed a Conservative lawmaker's proposal to hold an EU referendum.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... IK20150911

Some on here have bemoaned Cameron's decision to hold a referendum at all, as showing a lack of leadership. It would appear that if Corbyn was PM he would also favour a referendum.

Today Corbyn is due to give a speech, giving lukewarm support to the remain camp, after voting against the Lisbon Treaty. He voted No in the original referendum and has been consistently anti EU.

Conviction politician? Is that not how Corbyn has been lionised by the left?

rick_chasey

Yeah certainly in my market the referendum has caused some 'fear factor' which is putting the brakes on quite a lot.

So given the rational argument for staying in is above reproach and the 'out' campaign is mere populist pandering and fantasy economics, I definitely see the referendum as costly.

What that has to do with Corbyn I don't know.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

In 2008 Corbyn opposed his party to vote against implementing the EU's Lisbon Treaty and in 2011 he backed a Conservative lawmaker's proposal to hold an EU referendum.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... IK20150911

Some on here have bemoaned Cameron's decision to hold a referendum at all, as showing a lack of leadership. It would appear that if Corbyn was PM he would also favour a referendum.

Today Corbyn is due to give a speech, giving lukewarm support to the remain camp, after voting against the Lisbon Treaty. He voted No in the original referendum and has been consistently anti EU.

Conviction politician? Is that not how Corbyn has been lionised by the left?

its a lack of leadership, judgement and patriotism, DC's decision was based on what was good for the Tories and for him, he wanted to neutralise UKIP to boost his chances of winning the last GE and hang what was good for the country...
the evidence for this view is that the very same PM and Chancellor are now going around telling us all of impending doom if we leave, it follows that if it really is that bad, then why risk the nations well being on a vote which any moron can see will be decided by many on immigration?

fwiw if Corbyn had been in power and called a referendum i d be against that too, might sound some what arrogant but i think some decisions are best left to responsible government eg Hanging, Trident and the EU.
want to have a referendum on HS2 ? go ahead.

if Corbyn is now pro EU, good on him, like the Tories of tax credit, some times we get things wrong and have a change of view or in corbyns case, he realises that with high office comes responsibility he didnt have as a back bencher.

ballysmate

EU membership was a boil that would need to be lanced at some point, regardless of whether the Tories won the election. Cameron promised a referendum in the manifesto which I agree may have persuaded some Eurosceptics to vote Tory. But don't forget or dismiss the 4m who still voted UKIP, a one trick pony. That is 1 in 8 of the electorate and more than the number of people voting Libdem & Green combined. If Cameron had not wooed some of the Eurosceptics and UKIP had enjoyed the support of all sceptics, the movement to leave would have been stronger and perhaps unstoppable.
Like it or not, immigration is an important subject for many voters, we, and others, have discussed the subject on here ourselves. I still think that Cameron will get his wish and we vote to stay in.
We have discussed before, the merits of a referendum on this issue and no, I don't feel the need of a vote on HS2, although I am not convinced by it.
I don't believe that Corbyn is pro EU or changed his mind, hence his lukewarm support. He is doing the bare minimum to appease his party. He is probably becoming more politically astute.
Cameron is at least being true to his belief that we will be better as a member of the EU, whereas Corbyn is playing politics by campaigning for something he doesn't believe in. Politics is the name of the game, I get that, but lets not pretend otherwise.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

EU membership was a boil that would need to be lanced at some point, regardless of whether the Tories won the election. Cameron promised a referendum in the manifesto which I agree may have persuaded some Eurosceptics to vote Tory. But don't forget or dismiss the 4m who still voted UKIP, a one trick pony. That is 1 in 8 of the electorate and more than the number of people voting Libdem & Green combined. If Cameron had not wooed some of the Eurosceptics and UKIP had enjoyed the support of all sceptics, the movement to leave would have been stronger and perhaps unstoppable.
Like it or not, immigration is an important subject for many voters, we, and others, have discussed the subject on here ourselves. I still think that Cameron will get his wish and we vote to stay in.
We have discussed before, the merits of a referendum on this issue and no, I don't feel the need of a vote on HS2, although I am not convinced by it.
I don't believe that Corbyn is pro EU or changed his mind, hence his lukewarm support. He is doing the bare minimum to appease his party. He is probably becoming more politically astute.
Cameron is at least being true to his belief that we will be better as a member of the EU, whereas Corbyn is playing politics by campaigning for something he doesn't believe in. Politics is the name of the game, I get that, but lets not pretend otherwise.

i dont dispute any of what you say BUT if the dangers to the UK are so serious as DC Osbourne et el are telling us, then it is surely irresponsible in the extreme to risk the economic prosperity of the UK on such a vote?

UKIP have had years banging the OUT drum and got no where, dont see why that would have changed, of course had they got 30 MPs but then we ll never know.

i listened to Corbyns speech and he made a good argument to stay in, employment protection, environment, trade - has he changed his tune.. yes, he is a leader now and needs to carry the PPL not just the grass roots where his support is.

big problem for the IN camp is getting their supporters to come out and vote, there is also a large number of floating voters, so i think there is a decent chance we ll vote OUT.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah certainly in my market the referendum has caused some 'fear factor' which is putting the brakes on quite a lot.

So given the rational argument for staying in is above reproach and the 'out' campaign is mere populist pandering and fantasy economics, I definitely see the referendum as costly.
.

We need to get a grip on immigration or accept that we are going to concrete over vast areas of our country, or I suppose accept that house prices and rents are going to continue to skyrocket. To be fair as I own a few properties that probably isn't a bad thing for me but I do think it's a bad thing for this country.

Economically there is no reason why this country couldn't do very well out of the EU just as other countries do. We run a trade deficit with the EU and a trade surplus with the rest of the world. The people telling us what a disaster it will be are the same people that were telling us we were mad not to enter the Euro some years back. There is also the small matter of around 8.5bn that we contribute to the EU over and above what we get back.

rick_chasey

I'd suggest the issues around immigration are at best tangential to membership of the EU.

Immigration won't suddenly stop when the UK leaves the EU.

ballysmate

Most people will find it difficult to separate the issues of immigration and EU membership. They see thousands landing in Greece and Italy and believe that few if any will return to their homelands. People look at these people and see the possibility that they become EU citizens and potentially acquire the right to settle here.
Wishing this was not the case doesn't make it so.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest the issues around immigration are at best tangential to membership of the EU.

Immigration won't suddenly stop when the UK leaves the EU.

Membership of the EU has been one of the main drivers of record immigration into the UK. If more poorer nations join the EU then that will only increase.

You are right to suggest it isn't the only reason why we should leave though.

pblakeney

Much will be written over the next few weeks about immigration and finances.
However, I would suggest that the vote should be taken with full consideration for the future, and your principles.
It is quite simple really. Do you agree, or disagree, with the principles below?

"THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article I-4 of the Constitution guarantees the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the Union (the famous "four freedoms") and strictly prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

As regards relations between the Union and the Member States, the Constitutional Treaty brings together the relevant provisions of the existing Treaties in Article I-5, in particular the obligation to respect the national identities and the fundamental political and constitutional structures of the Member States. The principle of loyal cooperation is also included in this Article.

Article I-6 of the Constitutional Treaty is devoted to Union law. It lays down the principle of the primacy of the law of the European Union over the law of the Member States. This principle, which has been developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law, has long been recognised to be a basic principle and a key aspect of the functioning of the Union. The Constitution simply gives it a higher profile by incorporating it into a key part of the Treaty.

Article I-7 confers on the European Union legal personality. Following the merger of the European Community and the European Union, the new Union will therefore have the right to conclude international agreements , in the same way as the European Community can today, but without compromising the division of competences between the Union and the Member States."

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Much will be written over the next few weeks about immigration and finances.
However, I would suggest that the vote should be taken with full consideration for the future, and your principles.
It is quite simple really. Do you agree, or disagree, with the principles below?

"THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article I-4 of the Constitution guarantees the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the Union (the famous "four freedoms") and strictly prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

As regards relations between the Union and the Member States, the Constitutional Treaty brings together the relevant provisions of the existing Treaties in Article I-5, in particular the obligation to respect the national identities and the fundamental political and constitutional structures of the Member States. The principle of loyal cooperation is also included in this Article.

Article I-6 of the Constitutional Treaty is devoted to Union law. It lays down the principle of the primacy of the law of the European Union over the law of the Member States. This principle, which has been developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law, has long been recognised to be a basic principle and a key aspect of the functioning of the Union. The Constitution simply gives it a higher profile by incorporating it into a key part of the Treaty.

Article I-7 confers on the European Union legal personality. Following the merger of the European Community and the European Union, the new Union will therefore have the right to conclude international agreements , in the same way as the European Community can today, but without compromising the division of competences between the Union and the Member States."

But to agree or disagree people would need to understand what you have just written - what % of the electorate could read and understand that?

My attempt at understanding the Fundamental (as chosen by you) Principles;

l-4... "do you want to be a member of the largest trading bloc in the world"?
l-5.... seems to write into law to respect the culture, laws and govt of member states
l-6.... seems to contradict l-5 by saying EU law trumps member state law.
l-7.... seems to just establish the EU as a legal entity

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My attempt at understanding the Fundamental (as chosen by you) Principles;

Not true. Those are the Fundamental Principles as written by the EU themselves.

I leave it to you to interpret them as you wish, and vote accordingly.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest the issues around immigration are at best tangential to membership of the EU.

Immigration won't suddenly stop when the UK leaves the EU.

Membership of the EU has been one of the main drivers of record immigration into the UK. If more poorer nations join the EU then that will only increase.

You are right to suggest it isn't the only reason why we should leave though.

On this, and in general, do read this:

http://www.economist.com/news/latin-ame ... exit-would

THERE is much dispute in the Brexit debate over the economic effects of leaving the EU. Even Brexiteers accept that there would be some short-term costs from uncertainty, but they claim that in the long run Britain could still be better off. Most objective economic studies disagree, finding that there would be long-term costs as well. On April 18th the Treasury weighed in with a 200-page analysis. Its conclusion is that they will be high: the central estimate touted by George Osborne, the chancellor, is that GDP may be 6.2% lower than it would otherwise have been by 2030, an annual cost that he reckons works out at some £4,300 ($6,000) per household.

Moreover, there are reasons to believe that the Treasury’s estimates may be optimistic. It assumes a lower effect on productivity from lost trade and investment than the LSE study does. It is based on an assumption of no net budget contribution, whereas Norway and Switzerland both pay heavily to Brussels. And it projects no net reduction in immigration as a result of Brexit, whereas Brexiteers tend to favour tougher migration controls that most economists reckon would further reduce GDP.

In short, the Treasury’s conclusion that the economy would suffer a substantial loss in the event of Brexit is largely convincing. Mr Osborne has rightly observed that some voters may, even so, want to opt for Brexit for other reasons. But they should do so in the full realisation that it is likely to cost them quite heavily.

Bobbinogs

mmm, there are so many assumptions behind that psuedo science of the government report as to render it completely laughable. Sky (quite surprisingly given just how biased their immigration reporting is) did a good review of some of the assumptions behind that report and it is a clear case that stats can be made to prove whatever you set out to prove...if the right assumptions are made as part of the analysis.

rick_chasey

Bobbinogs wrote:

mmm, there are so many assumptions behind that psuedo science of the government report as to render it completely laughable. Sky (quite surprisingly given just how biased their immigration reporting is) did a good review of some of the assumptions behind that report and it is a clear case that stats can be made to prove whatever you set out to prove...if the right assumptions are made as part of the analysis.

Again, from the article.

Brexiteers have been quick to dismiss the entire analysis. Yet they can hardly accuse the Treasury of naive Europhilia. The department is more often accused of being Eurosceptic. And the chief economist who oversaw its Brexit analysis is the very man who led its investigation some 13 years ago into the five tests for euro membership, after which Britain chose, during Gordon Brown’s chancellorship, to stay out of Europe’s single currency.

Bobbinogs

...but it is 200 pages of analysis based on a few very key assumptions that the report does very well not to clearly outline, and what would help is some simple sliding scales to show just how these key assumptions affect the major conclusions drawn. The report is produced by the government. The same government that spent £9.3M sending out a pro-EU doc, the spend for which was not part of the capped spending limits on campaigning. If this was happening in some tin pot country we would smugly sit back and point out the flaws in all this inconsistency.

rick_chasey

Bobbinogs wrote:

...but it is 200 pages of analysis based on a few very key assumptions that the report does very well not to clearly outline, and what would help is some simple sliding scales to show just how these key assumptions will affect things. The report is produced by the government. The same government that spent £9.3M sending out a pro-EU doc, the spend for which was not part of the capped spending limits on campaigning. If this was happening in some tin pot country we would smugly sit back and point out the flaws in all this inconsistency.

To be clear.

Treasury ain't the gov't.

They're civil servants.

Bobbinogs

If you think the treasury produced this report without official government influence/sanction then crack on. This is all part of the spin, DC wants you to vote IN and has staked everything on it. He will have made that very clear to those lining up for their gongs on retirement.