The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Jimothy]

That's not really the point. You've spent a large chunk of the day arguing points based on a discussion you made out to be watching intently when clearly you wasn't paying attention. How can you criticise anyone for what they said on that panel last night when it seems you didn't hear half of it

[Guest MattP]

Well if Boris Johnson isn't a Tory I stand corrected.

[Jimothy]

Well if Boris Johnson isn't a Tory I stand corrected.

That's not the point I was making is .

You obviously didn't listen to the point Mason made, and now you're not really understanding it. Alf clearly explains it very well a few posts up. It's worrying someone who puts themself across as someone well educated and up on his politics is not understanding this so spectacularly.

[Guest MattP]

Well I'm I'm good company, the political editor of The Times made pretty much the same point I did. I'll survive.

Anyway it's Friday night.

[Jimothy]

Well I'm I'm good company, the political editor of The Times made pretty much the same point I did. I'll survive.

Anyway it's Friday night.

Well he obviously wasn't listening too then

[Guest MattP]

Don't think I've ever put myself across as educated or well up on politics either, just like every other person on here I'm an arsehole with an opinion

[Alf Bentley]

Anyone watch Paul Mason on BBCQT last night? [...]

 

He's a Brexiteer but he's voting remain as he doesn't like the Tories, where to start with that I have no idea.

He didn't actually say he would vote to remain, his predicament was his disdain for the EU is finely balanced with his hatred of old Etonians running the country.

He did; in fact barely a thing that came out of his mouth wasn't class war related.

Which is so short sighted it's beyond belief, get out and then put forward the alternative people will vote for ahead of the "old Etonians"

For anyone who's interested in understanding Mason's position ("left-wing Brexit but probably not yet"), he explains it here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/16/brexit-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-greece-tory

Not that I necessarily agree with him (he's more left-wing and a lot more pro-Brexit than I am), I just don't like people's views being misrepresented - especially when we've heard so little from the Left during this crucial debate.

 

Neither in the article nor on QT did he say he'd vote Remain [....]

 

It was not a misrepresentation at all.

He stated he wants to vote out but he might vote remain because of "this right wing Tory government" being in power afterwards.

In terms of misrepresentation it's certainly a mile behind referring to Boris Johnson as a British Trump.

 

So, it's that he "might" vote Remain now, is it? And it's about a "right-wing Tory government", not just disliking all Tories? Nice bit of backtracking!    

 

I'd still like to see where he "stated" that he might. Such a possibility could possibly be "inferred" from the article - but all he "states" is that he might abstain. On QT, he made no such "statement" that I recall. I think he mentioned abstaining again, but inferred that he might vote Leave if the EU gave Cameron a load of last-minute right-wing concessions (on social regulation etc.) 

 

 

 

As for Boris v. Trump, here are a few Boris quotes from Wiki:

- In one 2002 column he used the words "piccannies", and "watermelon smiles" when referring to Africans, also championing European colonialism in Uganda

- He used homophobic terminology when referring to gay men as "tank-topped bumboys" further stating that it was "appalling" that the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair were repealing Section 28

- Johnson also said "If gay marriage was OK ... then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog"

- In June 1995 a recording of a telephone conversation between Johnson and Guppy was made public. Guppy had requested the private address and telephone number of a journalist, wishing to have him beaten up to prevent him investigating Guppy's criminal activities. Johnson agreed to provide the information, and expressed concern that he would be associated with the attack.

- In November 2004, the British tabloids revealed that since 2000, Johnson had been having an affair, resulting in two terminated pregnancies. Johnson initially dismissed the claims as "piffle". After the allegations were proven, Howard asked Johnson to resign from his position as vice chairman and shadow arts minister, not because of the affair but because he had publicly lied about it. Johnson refused, defending his right to lie, at which Howard sacked him from those positions.

- In 2009 Johnson fathered an illegitimate daughter with Helen MacIntyre, an arts consultant. Her existence was the subject of legal action in 2013 with the Court of Appeal quashing an injunction seeking to ban reporting of her existence; the judge ruled that the public had a right to know about Johnson's "reckless" behaviour"

- Johnson: "Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009. It was a bust of Winston Churchill – the great British wartime leader. But on day one of the Obama administration it was returned, without ceremony, to the British embassy in Washington. ... Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President's ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender" [a false claim against our ally]

- Johnson became the centre of great media interest at the start of 2016 when he initially refused to clarify his support for Brexit. 

 

.....and that's before he started comparing the EU to Hitler and chatting shite about bananas. Quite a lot of common ground with Trump there!

- 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

So he's a Brexiteer then who might not vote out because it hands more power to the Tories?

Am I in some sort of parralel universe here? Boris Johnson is a Tory.

I expect Mason's position is broadly representative of a lot of potential voters for Brexit in this country in that they'd be willing to do so if they were more assured of what the consequences of that would be in terms of the countries direction. That from their personal position, they'd be very conflicted to indirectly put into power figures that look a lot like a Thatcher government they spent years and years fighting.

It takes a broad church to win a vote which is a straight 50/50 decision.

[Alf Bentley]

While we are on misrepresentation though can the remain camp (Lucy Thomas still peddling this on DP today) stop with the 'as many Brits live in EU as they come here' - figures so outdated.

UN figs: 1.2m UK-born live in other EU countries, mostly Spain, Ireland, France. 3m from other EU countries live in UK. Numbers NOT the same

 

 

That is indeed a misrepresentation, if people are saying that, based on figures I've seen.

 

A more valid issue would be the nature of the immigrants and emigrants. My understanding is that most immigrants from the EU are working.

 

A significantly smaller number of Brits live on the continent.....but a high proportion of them are retired. Hypothetically bringing back large numbers of pensioners, many with health problems, and getting rid of a larger number of European workers might not be a good idea if we want to keep a lid on public spending and ensure a decent tax take.

[Rincewind]

I expect Mason's position is broadly representative of a lot of potential voters for Brexit in this country in that they'd be willing to do so if they were more assured of what the consequences of that would be in terms of the countries direction. That from their personal position, they'd be very conflicted to indirectly put into power figures that look a lot like a Thatcher government they spent years and years fighting.

It takes a broad church to win a vote which is a straight 50/50 decision.

Yes me too. And as Alf and Facecloth says it isn't that I do not like the Tories that concerns me but what may happen if the far right take control of the country.  Now it seems that Mason did not say he would vote remain because he does not like Tories but his words were misinterpreted. I do not fancy the idea of Johnson or Gove taking over from Cameron. Or the other lot.

Whichever way the vote goes someone will be shafted and suffer and I can bet it will not be those that decide who it will be..

[Strokes]

That is indeed a misrepresentation, if people are saying that, based on figures I've seen.

 

A more valid issue would be the nature of the immigrants and emigrants. My understanding is that most immigrants from the EU are working.

 

A significantly smaller number of Brits live on the continent.....but a high proportion of them are retired. Hypothetically bringing back large numbers of pensioners, many with health problems, and getting rid of a larger number of European workers might not be a good idea if we want to keep a lid on public spending and ensure a decent tax take.

Why would we be getting rid of anyone working? I don't think we are planning to deport people already here and legal under the current system, unless you know otherwise?

The pensioners may well be in declining health but are their any figures on the wealth of this portion of expats? It might be quite profitable to bring them back also.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Yes me too. And as Alf and Facecloth says it isn't that I do not like the Tories that concerns me but what may happen if the far right take control of the country.  Now it seems that Mason did not say he would vote remain because he does not like Tories but his words were misinterpreted. I do not fancy the idea of Johnson or Gove taking over from Cameron. Or the other lot.

Whichever way the vote goes someone will be shafted and suffer and I can bet it will not be those that decide who it will be..

Yes it's very strange, but then again it's not - the whole Brexit campaign is fractured, it's not being led very well.

For a start you had two rival campaigns that don't seem to like each other much, a few different characters who want to lead, no real clear direction or strategy of who they're reaching out for voter wise (seems more of a anyone who will listen move) rather than targeting events at cross sections of society. Even the message at times seems confused. It's all a bit... amateurish.

Say what you like about Cameron, but one thing he's pretty good at (with his chums) is organising a campaign. True the expenses may be a bit questionable (alledgedly), but if you consider what's gone on so far the Remain campaign has lined up its events in rhythmic order and have looked to frame the area of debate to their agenda. There is a control about it, an acknowledge of what their key messages are and obvious direction of who they're targetting with they're mini events.

It's no suprise to me to see the polling swing significantly towards remain at the moment. The Brexit camp could possibly do with a coup at the top!

[Rincewind]

Gary Lineker (HIGNFY) There are many that do not want to be in Europe I saw eleven of them playing for Liverpool the other night.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

That is indeed a misrepresentation, if people are saying that, based on figures I've seen.

 

A more valid issue would be the nature of the immigrants and emigrants. My understanding is that most immigrants from the EU are working.

 

A significantly smaller number of Brits live on the continent.....but a high proportion of them are retired. Hypothetically bringing back large numbers of pensioners, many with health problems, and getting rid of a larger number of European workers might not be a good idea if we want to keep a lid on public spending and ensure a decent tax take.

There will be no retrospective deportation either way Alf, I'd be pretty sure of that - not only would it be an extremely costly exercise and almost impossible to do fairly, the image of forceably removing a mass of people due to a democratic decision is not one any political leader would want against their character.

Ant changes in im immigration rules would have to be on a "rolling forward basis" with possibly a warning / grace period ahead of that - so in theory you could find a Brexit results in a mass rush of people to get in or out before the borders are tightened.

[Strokes]

There will be no retrospective deportation either way Alf, I'd be pretty sure of that - not only would it be an extremely costly exercise and almost impossible to do fairly, the image of forceably removing a mass of people due to a democratic decision is not one any political leader would want against their character.

Ant changes in im immigration rules would have to be on a "rolling forward basis" with possibly a warning / grace period ahead of that - so in theory you could find a Brexit results in a mass rush of people to get in or out before the borders are tightened.

Possible, but only by people who plan to come here at some point anyway.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Possible, but only by people who plan to come here at some point anyway.

I'm not sure on that... A lot of people intend to do something but never get round to doing it. Such a definite position may jolt people in making a decision they wouldn't have done otherwise. You may also have situations where families ensure they're together rather than being based apart for a short to medium term.

It's certainly an area that could do with some journalism on. The only comparative I can think of would be the Berlin Wall and my small level of research suggests around 3.5 million East Germans moved themselves around the continent to be based on the West side prior to it being fully built.

[johnny the fox]

When will the leavers actually say what is likely to happen if the UK left? and then back their statements up with some logical arguments.

The stayer's need to do the same...apart from world war 3  kicking off if we leave........This country ran 3/5's of the world... not so long ago...now according to the defeatists we can't even run our own country without the Eu .....................fook off... stand up..get off your knees ..we CAN run our nation without Europe's help...FFS.

[Strokes]

I'm not sure on that... A lot of people intend to do something but never get round to doing it. Such a definite position may jolt people in making a decision they wouldn't have done otherwise. You may also have situations where families ensure they're together rather than being based apart for a short to medium term.

It's certainly an area that could do with some journalism on. The only comparative I can think of would be the Berlin Wall and my small level of research suggests around 3.5 million East Germans moved themselves around the continent to be based on the West side prior to it being fully built.

Very different circumstances and I'm not sure it's something we can draw comparison from. If we are selling the EU, which you are. Why do you think all these Europeans will panic migrate?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Very different circumstances and I'm not sure it's something we can draw comparison from. If we are selling the EU, which you are. Why do you think all these Europeans will panic migrate?

Agreed.

I just think the UK, with its history, it's culture, it's stature is an understandable aspiration for many many people looking in from the outside. When as a nation you fashion yourself on wanting the underdog to prevail, should it be a suprise if others in the underdog position wish to latch onto that?

[Strokes]

Agreed.

I just think the UK, with its history, it's culture, it's stature is an understandable aspiration for many many people looking in from the outside. When as a nation you fashion yourself on wanting the underdog to prevail, should it be a suprise if others in the underdog position wish to latch onto that?

Not at all, but if they aren't worried by us leaving the EU, why should we be?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Not at all, but if they aren't worried by us leaving the EU, why should we be?

Good point!

I would say things like a national perspective don't always resonate to a personal perspective - you can have that "won't happen to me" logic, that feeling your own destiny will be in your hands not the states.

Plus, I don't believe there will be a dramatic, instant change in the countries position - there will be an initial shock on the stock market no doubt given the phroposcies uttered are almost self fulfilling now, but any long term economic effects would be via a long, slow and drawn out process.

[Alf Bentley]

There will be no retrospective deportation either way Alf, I'd be pretty sure of that - not only would it be an extremely costly exercise and almost impossible to do fairly, the image of forceably removing a mass of people due to a democratic decision is not one any political leader would want against their character.

Ant changes in im immigration rules would have to be on a "rolling forward basis" with possibly a warning / grace period ahead of that - so in theory you could find a Brexit results in a mass rush of people to get in or out before the borders are tightened.

 

Why would we be getting rid of anyone working? I don't think we are planning to deport people already here and legal under the current system, unless you know otherwise?

The pensioners may well be in declining health but are their any figures on the wealth of this portion of expats? It might be quite profitable to bring them back also.

 

 

I agree that such changes would probably be "rolling forward", not retrospective, DJ. That's why I used the word "hypothetically". 

 

However, a motivating factor for people voting Leave (only one factor, but a big one) is that there would be a lot fewer foreigners here. If, after Brexit, most immigrants already here will be able to stay - and there might be transitional arrangements allowing significant numbers to continue arriving for a couple of years - how is that going to go down with Brexit voters? Particularly if economic uncertainty leads to a downturn for a couple of years (even if things might improve further down the line). There are also occupations and sectors that would need migrant labour for several years, at least: you can't suddenly magic thousands of extra qualified British plumbers, nurses, doctors or teachers into existence. Even finding countless thousands of British people to do unskilled care work, fruit-picking, food-processing or whatever might take time. The Government has struggled to cut NON-EU immigration for years, until recently.

 

If we are to rely less on foreign labour, we need to massively increase the number of British people qualifying as plumbers, nurses, doctors or whatever - no easy or quick task, particularly when the Treasury is strapped for cash. In the meantime, would voters really be happy with fewer European migrants but more Asian migrants - that's probably the short-term alternative, isn't it?

 

I agree that, if relations between the UK and our neighbours remained civil and constructive, Brexit would not lead to mass deportations in either direction. There is a nightmare scenario, though, where post-Brexit relations between the UK and EU cut up rough. Leave campaigners seem to under-estimate how difficult it will be to negotiate beneficial treaties. The assumption seems to be: they need us more than we need them, so they'll be in a rush to sign deals on our terms. In reality, the EU would be pursuing its own interests just as fiercely as we would; if anything, other EU countries might take a particularly hard line for fear of their own populations following our example and wanting out - or turning against them for negotiating soft deals with the UK. All that could be going on at a time when the UK economy took a bit of a dip due to uncertainty (likely short-term, even Brexit people admit), possibly generating widespread discontent, and maybe hostility towards foreigners in the UK - on a par with what has already been happening in several countries on the continent. That scenario could encourage the UK and/or the EU to take an harder line, causing a spiral of friction.

 

Strokes has a point that consideration needs to be given to the wealth of any ex-pats who returned to the UK - or of potential ex-pats who ended up staying here in future, instead of going abroad. That wealth might be beneficial to the economy in various ways. It might have other consequences, though, such as putting more pressure on the housing market and forcing house prices up. I suppose consequences like that would be a matter of long-term planning, though we don't seem to be very good at that, to judge from the housing shortage.

 

Even assuming that any prohibition of flows of British expats to the Dordogne and the Costas affected only future generations, that would still have consequences for the NHS and social care - even allowing for some of those retirees being wealthy. There would clearly be even greater demand on the NHS, which is already struggling - would we raise taxes, lower quality, privatise more, introduce more means-testing? As for social care, council social services for the elderly are falling to bits already - and are very costly: my Dad needs 24-hour care and it is costing £40,000+ per annum. Not every potential expat could afford that for several years. 

 

Unfortunately, the debate on both sides is really poor. Maybe Brexit would be greatly beneficial in the long-run (in all honesty, it's very hard for anyone to predict beyond a few years - too many variables), but it would certainly involve some massive uncertainty, disruption and risk in the short-to-medium-term.

[Strokes]

I agree that such changes would probably be "rolling forward", not retrospective, DJ. That's why I used the word "hypothetically".

However, a motivating factor for people voting Leave (only one factor, but a big one) is that there would be a lot fewer foreigners here. If, after Brexit, most immigrants already here will be able to stay - and there might be transitional arrangements allowing significant numbers to continue arriving for a couple of years - how is that going to go down with Brexit voters? Particularly if economic uncertainty leads to a downturn for a couple of years (even if things might improve further down the line). There are also occupations and sectors that would need migrant labour for several years, at least: you can't suddenly magic thousands of extra qualified British plumbers, nurses, doctors or teachers into existence. Even finding countless thousands of British people to do unskilled care work, fruit-picking, food-processing or whatever might take time. The Government has struggled to cut NON-EU immigration for years, until recently.

If we are to rely less on foreign labour, we need to massively increase the number of British people qualifying as plumbers, nurses, doctors or whatever - no easy or quick task, particularly when the Treasury is strapped for cash. In the meantime, would voters really be happy with fewer European migrants but more Asian migrants - that's probably the short-term alternative, isn't it?

I agree that, if relations between the UK and our neighbours remained civil and constructive, Brexit would not lead to mass deportations in either direction. There is a nightmare scenario, though, where post-Brexit relations between the UK and EU cut up rough. Leave campaigners seem to under-estimate how difficult it will be to negotiate beneficial treaties. The assumption seems to be: they need us more than we need them, so they'll be in a rush to sign deals on our terms. In reality, the EU would be pursuing its own interests just as fiercely as we would; if anything, other EU countries might take a particularly hard line for fear of their own populations following our example and wanting out - or turning against them for negotiating soft deals with the UK. All that could be going on at a time when the UK economy took a bit of a dip due to uncertainty (likely short-term, even Brexit people admit), possibly generating widespread discontent, and maybe hostility towards foreigners in the UK - on a par with what has already been happening in several countries on the continent. That scenario could encourage the UK and/or the EU to take an harder line, causing a spiral of friction.

Strokes has a point that consideration needs to be given to the wealth of any ex-pats who returned to the UK - or of potential ex-pats who ended up staying here in future, instead of going abroad. That wealth might be beneficial to the economy in various ways. It might have other consequences, though, such as putting more pressure on the housing market and forcing house prices up. I suppose consequences like that would be a matter of long-term planning, though we don't seem to be very good at that, to judge from the housing shortage.

Even assuming that any prohibition of flows of British expats to the Dordogne and the Costas affected only future generations, that would still have consequences for the NHS and social care - even allowing for some of those retirees being wealthy. There would clearly be even greater demand on the NHS, which is already struggling - would we raise taxes, lower quality, privatise more, introduce more means-testing? As for social care, council social services for the elderly are falling to bits already - and are very costly: my Dad needs 24-hour care and it is costing £40,000+ per annum. Not every potential expat could afford that for several years.

Unfortunately, the debate on both sides is really poor. Maybe Brexit would be greatly beneficial in the long-run (in all honesty, it's very hard for anyone to predict beyond a few years - too many variables), but it would certainly involve some massive uncertainty, disruption and risk in the short-to-medium-term.

I'm not sure anyone of reasonable intelligence expects any instant changes Alf and I don't think people expect being in control of our borders to mean a dramatic cut to immigration in a hurry. Hopefully a slow stemming reduction, will make employers invest a bit more in the staff they currently have and value them a bit more though, I see that as a huge positive.

On the whole though immigration and freedom of movement isn't even the main reason I will be voting to leave, as I've worked with many EU migrants over the last few years and have had very few negative experiences. I just don't believe in a political union with any of these nations. I'd be quite open to a dramatically scaled down and reformed EU, that retained the freedom of movement act but that would never happen.

[Dodgy Bob]

I agree that such changes would probably be "rolling forward", not retrospective, DJ. That's why I used the word "hypothetically".

However, a motivating factor for people voting Leave (only one factor, but a big one) is that there would be a lot fewer foreigners here. If, after Brexit, most immigrants already here will be able to stay - and there might be transitional arrangements allowing significant numbers to continue arriving for a couple of years - how is that going to go down with Brexit voters? Particularly if economic uncertainty leads to a downturn for a couple of years (even if things might improve further down the line). There are also occupations and sectors that would need migrant labour for several years, at least: you can't suddenly magic thousands of extra qualified British plumbers, nurses, doctors or teachers into existence. Even finding countless thousands of British people to do unskilled care work, fruit-picking, food-processing or whatever might take time. The Government has struggled to cut NON-EU immigration for years, until recently.

If we are to rely less on foreign labour, we need to massively increase the number of British people qualifying as plumbers, nurses, doctors or whatever - no easy or quick task, particularly when the Treasury is strapped for cash. In the meantime, would voters really be happy with fewer European migrants but more Asian migrants - that's probably the short-term alternative, isn't it?

I agree that, if relations between the UK and our neighbours remained civil and constructive, Brexit would not lead to mass deportations in either direction. There is a nightmare scenario, though, where post-Brexit relations between the UK and EU cut up rough. Leave campaigners seem to under-estimate how difficult it will be to negotiate beneficial treaties. The assumption seems to be: they need us more than we need them, so they'll be in a rush to sign deals on our terms. In reality, the EU would be pursuing its own interests just as fiercely as we would; if anything, other EU countries might take a particularly hard line for fear of their own populations following our example and wanting out - or turning against them for negotiating soft deals with the UK. All that could be going on at a time when the UK economy took a bit of a dip due to uncertainty (likely short-term, even Brexit people admit), possibly generating widespread discontent, and maybe hostility towards foreigners in the UK - on a par with what has already been happening in several countries on the continent. That scenario could encourage the UK and/or the EU to take an harder line, causing a spiral of friction.

Strokes has a point that consideration needs to be given to the wealth of any ex-pats who returned to the UK - or of potential ex-pats who ended up staying here in future, instead of going abroad. That wealth might be beneficial to the economy in various ways. It might have other consequences, though, such as putting more pressure on the housing market and forcing house prices up. I suppose consequences like that would be a matter of long-term planning, though we don't seem to be very good at that, to judge from the housing shortage.

Even assuming that any prohibition of flows of British expats to the Dordogne and the Costas affected only future generations, that would still have consequences for the NHS and social care - even allowing for some of those retirees being wealthy. There would clearly be even greater demand on the NHS, which is already struggling - would we raise taxes, lower quality, privatise more, introduce more means-testing? As for social care, council social services for the elderly are falling to bits already - and are very costly: my Dad needs 24-hour care and it is costing £40,000+ per annum. Not every potential expat could afford that for several years.

Unfortunately, the debate on both sides is really poor. Maybe Brexit would be greatly beneficial in the long-run (in all honesty, it's very hard for anyone to predict beyond a few years - too many variables), but it would certainly involve some massive uncertainty, disruption and risk in the short-to-medium-term.

Excellent post

[cityfanlee23]

I'll be voting out, Although I do fear short term for the country if the conservatives are left in power, and I say this as a conservative voter, they scare me, truly lost touch with real life.