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

[Countryfox]

And if you don't like what I said you can get stuffed cus I've got yooman rights !!

.... And my one legged Albanian rapist mate agrees with me ....

[Buzzell]

If we stay in someone tells us what to do ... If we get out we can make our own decisions ....

If we get out we can control immigration and not have to build so many houses and reduce the strain on all our public services.

If we stay in a lot of businesses and the people that own them would prosper.

I'm guessing you're voting out then?

[Countryfox]

I'm guessing you're voting out then?

Joking apart Buzzer this is a big big decision and I just hope we get it right. Yes I will vote out and I see so much self interest in all the arguments of those that want to stay in.

[Buzzell]

Suppose we all want what's best for our country. I'm not into politics so I have no clue which way to look at this but feel the need to vote anyway because of how big this is for our country. Just trying to see, from both sides, which would be best.

[Countryfox]

Suppose we all want what's best for our country. I'm not into politics so I have no clue which way to look at this but feel the need to vote anyway because of how big this is for our country. Just trying to see, from both sides, which would be best.

I'm not into politics either. One way to try and weigh this up is to consider why people who advise us to make one decision or the other are saying what they are saying. For example ... Why does Obama want us to stay in ... What's best for us or what's best for the good ol U S of A ... ? Use this for all arguments for and against and see if it helps .....

[bovril]

Suppose we all want what's best for our country. I'm not into politics so I have no clue which way to look at this but feel the need to vote anyway because of how big this is for our country. Just trying to see, from both sides, which would be best.

Vote 'in' for more foreign chebs.

[Buzzell]

Vote 'in' for more foreign chebs.

[BlueSi13]

Economic concerns are absolutely fair game to bring into the debate, and they're real. If the leave campaign can demonstrate why we shouldn't worry, then why haven't they? I watched a leave campaign broadcast on the TV yesterday and all it did was repeat five or six times that we pay £350m per week to the EU, and suggest through a little scene with actors that if we left we'd get seen more quickly by an NHS doctor ( has anyone else seen it? It's genuinely terrible). Everyone with the capability to check up on the claims about the£350m knows that it's a very weak point, and yet that's their central argument that they deem worth repeating six times in a TV broadcast.

As for the rest of the chest thumping chimpy nationalist stuff, I don't have any time for that because I've got an iq higher than 75. If you want to bring back the British empire then go for it, get yourself a boat and go and invade some lands. Being in the EU isn't stopping you.

 

 

It is absolutely right that Economics was brought into the debate.  It has been debated for months on end.  However Number 10 and the elite are no longer talking about Economics, since the polls shifted in favour of Brexit they have taken part in a ferocious race to the bottom to tell anyone who will listen how their lives will effectively be ruined either through war, disease, terrorism or bankruptcy if they vote Leave.  

 

Before that I think the general consensus was that the economy may suffer a short term murmur but over the long term the effects on the economy would be a bit 'meh'...may be a little bit up...may be a little bit down on projections.  In that arena the EU conversation was largely focused on sovereignty, immigration and security....conversations which the Bremain camp realised they didn't stand a chance in hell of winning.  So instead they've resorted to this to get the result they want.  Even the ferociously pro-EU Nicola Sturgeon has criticised the completely dire scaremongering.

 

Regardless though as Matt says I think it's done.  I can only hope the strategists behind the Bremain can sleep at night once this is over.  But it won't be the last we hear about it for a long looong time. 

 

As for your final paragraph, for a man who bigs up his own IQ (usually a worrying sign), I'll just assume emotion got the better of you.  It's the only way to explain such nonsense.

[bovril]

 

Well that was easy. I should be doing Cameron's job!

[Strokes]

Well that was easy. I should be doing Cameron's job!

Vote bovril.

[Buce]

Vote bovril.*

Other beef-based beverages available*

[ithuriel]

So, Cameron and Osbourne are pedaling fear to get peeps to vote to stay, does not say much when you have to push negatives rather than positives to stay in an institution.

I was edging on leaving but still unsure , thought I'd hang back and see what was said but after hearing Cammy these past few weeks he has helped in making a decision.

[Jimothy]

So, Cameron and Osbourne are pedaling fear to get peeps to vote to stay, does not say much when you have to push negatives rather than positives to stay in an institution.

I was edging on leaving but still unsure , thought I'd hang back and see what was said but after hearing Cammy these past few weeks he has helped in making a decision.

It's the way these debates naturally go. It's like the Scottish referendum. The campaign for the status quo will naturally go towards pointing out the failings of change whilst the one wanting something new will always try and point out the positivity in the change. Talking about what you already have isn't as hard hitting as talking about what you will get, so both will put their spin on what the new situation will look like.

As an aside, why is it every time I see two or more people discussing this on tv, the leave campaigner thinks the best tactic for getting their point across is to shout down their opponent? Seems to happen most weeks on QT, just seen it on BBC news. To me it seems some leave campaigners are worried the stay campaigners might get a decent point across so have to drown them out.

[Jon the Hat]

Didn't the BBC lead in giving it that ridiculous handle? The sooner they're folded up with what now serves as a Labour Party the better. They don't know the meaning of "unbiased" but are simply becoming more shrewd in how they disguise it.     

 

Never understood that.  They should have asked the Springwatch team; a brief mostly damp summer follows and then it is all downhill.

[Dodgy Bob]

It is absolutely right that Economics was brought into the debate. It has been debated for months on end. However Number 10 and the elite are no longer talking about Economics, since the polls shifted in favour of Brexit they have taken part in a ferocious race to the bottom to tell anyone who will listen how their lives will effectively be ruined either through war, disease, terrorism or bankruptcy if they vote Leave.

Before that I think the general consensus was that the economy may suffer a short term murmur but over the long term the effects on the economy would be a bit 'meh'...may be a little bit up...may be a little bit down on projections. In that arena the EU conversation was largely focused on sovereignty, immigration and security....conversations which the Bremain camp realised they didn't stand a chance in hell of winning. So instead they've resorted to this to get the result they want. Even the ferociously pro-EU Nicola Sturgeon has criticised the completely dire scaremongering.

Regardless though as Matt says I think it's done. I can only hope the strategists behind the Bremain can sleep at night once this is over. But it won't be the last we hear about it for a long looong time.

As for your final paragraph, for a man who bigs up his own IQ (usually a worrying sign), I'll just assume emotion got the better of you. It's the only way to explain such nonsense.

I wouldn't say highlighting potential economic concerns is scaremongering, any more than any other aspect of the debate. The economy wins elections and will probably win this debate, if the leave campaign has nothing to offer in response to legitimate economic concerns they will lose. The Remain camp is under no obligation to go easy on Leave just because they have no response. Remain will hammer this vote winning point home and it's up to Leave to out-debate them. So far, they're failing.

[Webbo]

The leave campaign have given answers to all possible outcomes only for remain to say that won't happen. Just because they've chosen to ignore the answers doesn't mean they haven't been given.

 

In contrast remain have told we'll be subject to terrorism and recessions if we leave, as if the EU has made us immune to that now, we're going to have a third world war and our own politicians can't be trusted to pass the laws we want, because being accountable to the electorate means certain dictatorship.

 

Remain are winning the argument on fear not logic. Their arguments are pathetic.

[bovril]

The word 'scaremongering' has been used to death by both sides, it has no meaning anymore.

[Guest MattP]

The word 'scaremongering' has been used to death by both sides, it has no meaning anymore.

 

It does, as Bluesri says I hope the Bremaineers can sleep at night after it, both sides have been at it but I've never seen anything like it from remain and in particular Call me Dave and Gideon. It's just been scare story after scare story based on figures from any (usually EU funded) body going, I've actually lost count of the amount of these now from the grusome twosome desperate to save their political careers.

 

Just in the last two weeks the man who can't forecast figures for this April last November is telling me I'll be £4,300 worse off in 14 years time, we've had a threat of a year long recession costing 820,000 jobs on Monday, then yesretday we get house prices falling by 15% (some might not see that as a bad thing) then an hour later we get that holidays are then going by 230 quid, before that we've get to Brexit possibly leading to a war in Europe.

 

Reuniting the Tory party isn' going to happen if either of them two are anywhere near the front bench, they should thank their lucky stars the opposition is such a joke and also is deciding to take one side so fervently.

[Sharpe's Fox]

We all knew what the Remain camp would do but Vote Leave has just become some reactionary campaign that can barely get its own arguments across. It was inevitable the moment the Tories decided to lead it, the media has just focused on Tory vs Tory rather than the arguments.

[Guest MattP]

I'm 80-20 Remain now. You might be cynical about that, thinking I'd never vote Leave, but that's not true. My instinct has always been to vote Remain, but I intend to vote on substance, not instinct. I'm dissatisfied with EU democracy (e.g. the crushing of Syriza), but is British democracy much better? I want to see wealth redistribution and social/environmental regulation of global capitalism - and will get more of that from the EU than from any conceivable UK government, particularly a Thatcherite one. I want Britain to stand up for itself with its neighbours, but we're as capable of doing that within the EU as outside, so opting to leave seems like a needlessly hostile act towards friends/friendly competitors.

 

The TTIP US-EU free trade deal still concerns me - and I'm not yet fully convinced that we'll have a proper democratic right to reject that, if we want, even though they reckon that it'll need to be approved by all 28 national parliaments. But if it does turn out to be as bad as some suggest (allowing US health companies an undemocratic legal right to asset-strip the NHS), surely other EU countries with bigger public sectors than us will also reject that. It's quite possible that TTIP will never be implemented - and if it is, would the UK really get a better trade deal negotiating alone with the US? And where would we be long-term if the US & EU did go ahead and we stayed outside? On what basis could we compete and succeed? Nice as it would be to imagine the UK becoming some sort of civilised, enlightened "new Sweden", what looks more likely is a combination of offshore financial centre, tax haven, high inequality and social squalor - especially given the current state of British politics.

 

British democracy is definitely much better, whilst the House of Lords remains an ogre and needs more than serious reform (I've come around to abolishing it) they have never as yet overthrown a government or removed elected politicians, that's something that has always been left upto the individual parties or the public.

 

I feel sad reading former Eurosceptics on the left on my Facebook page (not you) - they appear to be voting now purely on the basis that leaving the EU leaves us to be raped by the Tories for years on end, leaving aside that European Parliament will look very different after 2019, I can't understand how they have given up on winning elections so quickly, if the arguments they have are so just and moral they should be able to present a case to win an election against an unpopular government.

 

Given what the US has done to a lot of companies I think I'd prefer to be at the back at the queue when it comes to trade, it's unrestricted capitalism at it's absolute worst, we know TTIP is coming as well, I have no reason to disbelieve Gove when he says as soon as the remain vote has won every reform and promise will be taken to the ECHR and torn to bits, nothing gets in the way of the ideology.

 

It's the way these debates naturally go. It's like the Scottish referendum. The campaign for the status quo will naturally go towards pointing out the failings of change whilst the one wanting something new will always try and point out the positivity in the change. Talking about what you already have isn't as hard hitting as talking about what you will get, so both will put their spin on what the new situation will look like.

As an aside, why is it every time I see two or more people discussing this on tv, the leave campaigner thinks the best tactic for getting their point across is to shout down their opponent? Seems to happen most weeks on QT, just seen it on BBC news. To me it seems some leave campaigners are worried the stay campaigners might get a decent point across so have to drown them out.

 

Amazing how people see different things, what show(s) were you watching? The last two debates I've seen it was the remainers butting in, Chukka Umanna on Newsnight and Andrew Neil even got quite angry at Lucy Thomas for constantly doing it.

 

edit: As I type this Giselle Stuart launches into a constant barrage of interruption

[Webbo]

 

I feel sad reading former Eurosceptics on the left on my Facebook page (not you) - they appear to be voting now purely on the basis that leaving the EU leaves us to be raped by the Tories for years on end, leaving aside that European Parliament will look very different after 2019, I can't understand how they have given up on winning elections so quickly, if the arguments they have are so just and moral they should be able to present a case to win an election against an unpopular government.

This is the crux of the argument for me. If the Tories do all these terrible things then at least we can vote then out. If the EU change their minds and reverse all these wonderful laws that we're incapable of passing for ourselves then we're fvcked, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

[Guest MattP]

This is the crux of the argument for me. If the Tories do all these terrible things then at least we can vote then out. If the EU change their minds and reverse all these wonderful laws that we're incapable of passing for ourselves then we're fvcked, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

 

Absolutely, although as I've said what further baffles me about it is the short-termism, no guarantee the EU parliament will be one that reigns in the Tories post '19, it could even be one dragging John McDonnell up to tell he why he can't implement the financial plans he wants too.

 

Anyone see this poster from the remain campaign trying to get young people to vote? What were they thinking?

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Absolutely, although as I've said what further baffles me about it is the short-termism, no guarantee the EU parliament will be one that reigns in the Tories post '19, it could even be one dragging John McDonnell up to tell he why he can't implement the financial plans he wants too.

 

Anyone see this poster from the remain campaign trying to get young people to vote? What were they thinking?

 

 

Unless she's in Gibralter she isn't going to find her polling station round there.

[Alf Bentley]

British democracy is definitely much better, whilst the House of Lords remains an ogre and needs more than serious reform (I've come around to abolishing it) they have never as yet overthrown a government or removed elected politicians, that's something that has always been left upto the individual parties or the public.

 

I feel sad reading former Eurosceptics on the left on my Facebook page (not you) - they appear to be voting now purely on the basis that leaving the EU leaves us to be raped by the Tories for years on end, leaving aside that European Parliament will look very different after 2019, I can't understand how they have given up on winning elections so quickly, if the arguments they have are so just and moral they should be able to present a case to win an election against an unpopular government.

 

Given what the US has done to a lot of companies I think I'd prefer to be at the back at the queue when it comes to trade, it's unrestricted capitalism at it's absolute worst, we know TTIP is coming as well, I have no reason to disbelieve Gove when he says as soon as the remain vote has won every reform and promise will be taken to the ECHR and torn to bits, nothing gets in the way of the ideology.

 

 

 

Won't bang on, as I'm critical of EU democracy myself. But, aside from the anomalies of the Lords and FPTP, Thatcher abolished the GLC when the Left were elected in 1980s London, successive governments have reduced the funding and powers of local government, including bans on using "Right to Buy" revenues to build new homes and central government capping of Council Tax. EU democracy needs to improve greatly and quickly or I can see the EU falling to bits over the next 10 years, regardless of our referendum - but UK democracy is deeply flawed, too.

 

I accept your second point to some extent. Labour could win the 2020 election and the Far Right could be wielding power in the European Parliament. But, at the moment, the Tories are in power - and are favourites to retain power in 2020, probably under a more Thatcherite leadership. The Far Right probably won't have significant power at EU level any time soon, even if it IS likely to increase its support - and the continental mainstream Right is more centrist than the UK Tories. So, I can understand Eurosceptic Leftists thinking that the medium-term odds don't favour leaving now. That doesn't mean demanding some socialist utopia as a precondition. If a "One Nation" Tory government was on the cards, that argument would be a lot weaker. I don't think you appreciate how people like Gove, Boris, IDS, Farage & co are viewed on the Left: to many, they're the mirror image of what the Labour Left presumably looks like to you. Would you vote to hand this country over to Corbyn, Livingstone & Abbott?

 

I think part of Leave's problem is the unpredictability of the future beyond a few years. Anyone reasonable would accept that with Brexit things would probably get turbulent for 2-3 years, due to economic uncertainty and renegotiation of treaties (even though Remain are running a Fear campaign). Leave need to somehow convince people that things will be so much better in the medium to long-term that such short-term problems are worth accepting....and that's bloody difficult as it's an unpredictable world.

 

I'm sure the EU will attempt to push TTIP through, but I can't see them trying or succeeding with anything hugely controversial (e.g. giving US corporations the right to sue in kangaroo courts if European governments don't allow them to take over public services). Maybe I'm being complacent? But that would be at least as controversial on the continent as here. I can imagine the French public service unions shutting France down. Although there's no guarantee of a UK parliament vote, any TTIP legislation would have to be approved by all 28 national parliaments. Surely there'd have to be a vote - and surely it wouldn't get through those 28 parliaments if it was handing us all over to be screwed by US corporations as some (mainly on the Left) think?

[Webbo]

Won't bang on, as I'm critical of EU democracy myself. But, aside from the anomalies of the Lords and FPTP, Thatcher abolished the GLC when the Left were elected in 1980s London, successive governments have reduced the funding and powers of local government, including bans on using "Right to Buy" revenues to build new homes and central government capping of Council Tax. EU democracy needs to improve greatly and quickly or I can see the EU falling to bits over the next 10 years, regardless of our referendum - but UK democracy is deeply flawed, too.

 

 

The Lords is a revising chamber, it doesn't impose anything on us that the elected chamber hasn't first approved. The rest is just the policy of the govt of the day, a govt that could have been removed at the election if the majority of us disapproved.

 

 

IIrc Labour won the GLC election under a moderate leader who was then replaced by Ken Livingstone in a party coup.