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

[Rincewind]

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

it scares me when the word is over used.

[Guest MattP]

 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?

 

I do, I hear it every day. In answer to the question though it's a firm yes, I've said it twice before on here and I'll say it again - I'd rather live under a Labour government for the rest of my life outside of the EU than a Tory one inside of it, I regard Britain as an independent nation and the British people should have total say over who rules them, who they vote for is what they deserve, whether it's Farage and Boris on one extreme or Corbyn and Abbott on the other.

 

That's certainly one of Leave's biggest problem and unfortunately it's something we can't do much about, in my opinion the government should be putting forward the alternative for Brexit as well in case we vote for it, they should say whether they would intent to carry on subsidising farmers etc to the extent the EU does and give us a truthful example of what evidence they can produce rather than outrageous predictions for what the impending disaster will look like in 2030, obviously there is no chance of that happening though as the only people who can promise that are Cameron and Osborne and they both support a remain vote, they are hardly going to paint a picture for the public to vote for that will end the career of both of them.

 

I remember seeing a breakdown of numbers that shows they have the numbers to pass TTIP (very frustratingly I can't find it online at the minute although I'll keep looking) through in this parliament and that's why they'll make sure it's done before 2019, the video below in an interesting watch, it just shows how dissent is treated the European parliament by the leaders when there was some opposition to it.

 

[Guest MattP]

Is anyone surprised the Labour party didn't demand anything for their support of Cameron staying in the EU?

 

Underhanded yes but that's politics, I bet they could have stopped the gerrymandering of the constituencies to favour the Tories at least given how utterly desperate he is.

[Dodgy Bob]

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.

If they've given answers then they haven't done a very good job of getting them out there. All I've heard from them are short denials, just "no, that's wrong", which doesn't really hold any wait against multi-page reports detailing the inputs and outputs of credible economic models.

Remain hasn't said we'll be subject to terrorism or war as far as I'm aware. That was something to leave camp simply made up after Cameron said that being inside the EU helped us to influence EU decisions on defence, which is true. And there is every chance that we will enter recession as a direct consequence of leaving the EU, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

What's the difference between pointing out the potential negative consequences and a "pathetic" campaign based on fear? The potential negative economic consequences are very real, should the Remain camp just not be allowed to talk about them because they might cause fear? They may very well cause fear, people may very well lose their jobs, there may very well be a recession. This is what the debate is all about, isn't it? I don't criticise the leave campaign for peddling fear when they say that uncontrolled immigration drives down low skilled wages, why would I, it's true. It's also a genuine reason for some people to be fearful, there's nothing wrong with bringing negative points into a debate even if they cause fear. If they cause fear then they're actually especially relevant. Discussing those issues, along with the positives, is precisely the point of a debate. Disregarding the Remain arguments because they cause fear is pathetic, and smacks of someone who has no answers (not you personally, the leave campaign I mean).

[Dodgy Bob]

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.

And this isn't peddling fear? If the EU does terrible things then a British political party, very much like UKIP, will pop up and promise to take us out of the EU. At worst, we'd have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who would then take us out of the EU. It's barely any less power than we have now.

Of course, if British democracy is all its cracked up to be, then our elected representatives would surely efficiently remove us from the EU the minute it starts doing these horrible, horrible things to us? You don't seem to have any faith in your elected representatives actually representing your interests in that scenario though?

[Webbo]

Scare tactics are part and parcel of politics everyone does it but that's all the Remain camp have. There's no vision of a brighter future, unsurprisingly considering all they are offering is more of the same. More like it or lump it regulations, further progress towards a United States of Europe that nobody wants even more failed politicians put on the gravy train.

 

It's just an undemocratic racket.

[Webbo]

And this isn't peddling fear? If the EU does terrible things then a British political party, very much like UKIP, will pop up and promise to take us out of the EU. At worst, we'd have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who would then take us out of the EU. It's barely any less power than we have now.

Of course, if British democracy is all its cracked up to be, then our elected representatives would surely efficiently remove us from the EU the minute it starts doing these horrible, horrible things to us? You don't seem to have any faith in your elected representatives actually representing your interests in that scenario though?

How is that peddling fear? What have I said that isn't true? Surely even you would concede that changing govt is easier than extracting ourselves from the EU?

[Buce]

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

That is just embarrassing.

[bovril]

That is just embarrassing.

 

Meh. It's a bit naff but not as embarrassing as the recent poster about Turkey joining the EU.

[Buce]

And this isn't peddling fear? If the EU does terrible things then a British political party, very much like UKIP, will pop up and promise to take us out of the EU. At worst, we'd have to wait until the next election to vote in a party who would then take us out of the EU. It's barely any less power than we have now.

Of course, if British democracy is all its cracked up to be, then our elected representatives would surely efficiently remove us from the EU the minute it starts doing these horrible, horrible things to us? You don't seem to have any faith in your elected representatives actually representing your interests in that scenario though?

I thought you were banned?

[Dodgy Bob]

How is that peddling fear? What have I said that isn't true? Surely even you would concede that changing govt is easier than extracting ourselves from the EU?

Because the liklihood of the EU suddenly deciding to impose awful things on us is low and if that happens there will be ways we can and will get out. If we're defining "peddling fear" as talking about negative things that have a small chance of happening then I'd say that qualifies. I'd be interested to know your definition if you think talking about potential recession is peddling fear but talking about the EU suddenly turning all nasty dictator on us isn't?

[Alf Bentley]

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.

 

 

When I said that the Lords was an anomaly, I didn't suggest that it imposed anything - though it can, in effect, delay, obstruct and impose amendments on legislation passed by the Commons. Unlike Matt, I support the retention of a revising chamber, so I don't have a problem with those functions. The anomaly that I have a problem with is the Lords still comprising a load of hereditary peers, bishops and arbitrary numbers of political appointees. I don't even support an elected 2nd chamber in case it rivalled the Commons too much. A revising chamber comprising representatives of a broad range of civil institutions, specialist experts and local government sounds a good idea to me....though the composition would have to command broad support.

 

True, Livingstone took power of the GLC by calling a vote of London Labour Councillors, who voted the old leader out and Livingstone in. Things like that happen in politics. It happened at national level in 1990, when the Tories staged a party coup to replace Thatcher with Major. It might happen again in 1-2 months time: Tory Eurosceptic MPs/party members might stage a coup to replace Cameron with Boris or Gove. Would you condemn that? Do you condemn Major's 1990 Tory coup?

[Webbo]

Because the liklihood of the EU suddenly deciding to impose awful things on us is low and if that happens there will be ways we can and will get out. If we're defining "peddling fear" as talking about negative things that have a small chance of happening then I'd say that qualifies. I'd be interested to know your definition if you think talking about potential recession is peddling fear but talking about the EU becoming nasty dictators all if a sudden, isn't?

They already impose things on us that we don't want. In a lot of the smaller countries they have to submit their budgets for EU approval before they can impose the policies they were elected on.

 

Just because some people think they've given us nothing but good things doesn't mean it'll stay that way for ever. All govts think what they are doing is for our own good but for every person that approves of a certain policy there'll be another that will disagree. Just giving an unelected elite carte blanche to decide what's best for us is my idea of hell.

 

 

Here's a good speech from 25 years ago that sums it up well for me.

https://whitewednesday.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/tony-benn-on-democracy-and-the-eu-20th-november-1991/

[Webbo]

When I said that the Lords was an anomaly, I didn't suggest that it imposed anything - though it can, in effect, delay, obstruct and impose amendments on legislation passed by the Commons. Unlike Matt, I support the retention of a revising chamber, so I don't have a problem with those functions. The anomaly that I have a problem with is the Lords still comprising a load of hereditary peers, bishops and arbitrary numbers of political appointees. I don't even support an elected 2nd chamber in case it rivalled the Commons too much. A revising chamber comprising representatives of a broad range of civil institutions, specialist experts and local government sounds a good idea to me....though the composition would have to command broad support.

 

True, Livingstone took power of the GLC by calling a vote of London Labour Councillors, who voted the old leader out and Livingstone in. Things like that happen in politics. It happened at national level in 1990, when the Tories staged a party coup to replace Thatcher with Major. It might happen again in 1-2 months time: Tory Eurosceptic MPs/party members might stage a coup to replace Cameron with Boris or Gove. Would you condemn that? Do you condemn Major's 1990 Tory coup?

I was just an after thought when you were talking about democracy. To win an election and immediately change leader is one thing to change it under the circumstances we have now is a different matter.

[Dodgy Bob]

They already impose things on us that we don't want. In a lot of the smaller countries they have to submit their budgets for EU approval before they can impose the policies they were elected on.

Just because some people think they've given us nothing but good things doesn't mean it'll stay that way for ever. All govts think what they are doing is for our own good but for every person that approves of a certain policy there'll be another that will disagree. Just giving an unelected elite carte blanche to decide what's best for us is my idea of hell.

Here's a good speech from 25 years ago that sums it up well for me.

https://whitewednesday.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/tony-benn-on-democracy-and-the-eu-20th-november-1991/

I don't necessarily disagree with your views here. I don't know enough about it to be honest. As we briefly discussed before, that kind of thing feels too intangible for me to really care about, even if I know rationally that it is important.

But going back to whether the Remain campaign are being pathetic by peddling fear, I wouldn't dream of throwing those accusations at you for bringing up the point about democracy, just as I don't think it's justifiable to make those accusations against the Remain camp for bringing up the economy. They're both perfectly reasonable points to look at and they should be looked at very seriously. If that means getting reports from a variety of places like the IMF, treasury etc then for me that's just good campaigning. It's exactly what I want as a voter. I want a better opposition too, one that engages with the topic instead of trying to make out that anything that might cause fear is out of bounds.

[Guest MattP]

Do you think it's fair the treasury tells us we'll be £4,300 per family worse off in fourteen years time when the data used for that can't predict economic figures correctly six months in advance?

[Alf Bentley]

I remember seeing a breakdown of numbers that shows they have the numbers to pass TTIP (very frustratingly I can't find it online at the minute although I'll keep looking) through in this parliament and that's why they'll make sure it's done before 2019, the video below in an interesting watch, it just shows how dissent is treated the European parliament by the leaders when there was some opposition to it.

 

 

 

I'd be really interested if you do find info suggesting that the numbers are there to pass TTIP. Information about that seems very hard to pin down (I've just been trying myself!).

 

The best that I can do:

- It is "likely" but not certain that the parliaments of the UK and the other 27 EU states would get to ratify or reject TTIP, if competence is deemed to be part-EU, part-member states: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SN06688.pdf 

(see p.21) 

- There will be a vote at the European Council (Cameron & his 27 counterparts) & European Parliament....unclear whether unanimity would be required at the Council: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/process/

- François Hollande has already said that he won't ratify TTIP in its current form

- A similar, less controversial treaty with Canada is being processed now, but several East European states are saying they won't ratify it

- Larry Elliott (Guardian Economics Editor - v. reliable), Owen Jones & Greenpeace seem to think EU-US negotiations over TTIP are in serious trouble even before it gets to the ratification stage: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/03/ttip-has-been-kicked-into-the-long-grass-for-a-very-long-time

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/05/protest-never-changes-anything-derailing-ttip-trade-agreement

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/leaked-ttip-documents-cast-doubt-on-eu-us-trade-deal

 

Inconclusive, certainly, and I'm sure the EU & US will make further efforts to reach a settlement, but it sounds as if TTIP is still a long. long way off implementation.

[Alf Bentley]

I was just an after thought when you were talking about democracy. To win an election and immediately change leader is one thing to change it under the circumstances we have now is a different matter.

 

To win 3 elections, the last 2 by landslides and then change leader is one thing.....

 

To win an astonishing victory in 2015 and then, potentially, a referendum in 2016 and immediately change leader is one thing....

 

 

Politics is a ruthless business!

[Webbo]

To win 3 elections, the last 2 by landslides and then change leader is one thing.....

 

To win an astonishing victory in 2015 and then, potentially, a referendum in 2016 and immediately change leader is one thing....

 

 

Politics is a ruthless business!

Oh I definitely didn't agree with Mrs Thatchers removal( that surprises you I'm sure ) but when you've lost the confidence of the MPs you lead it's inevitable.

 

I actually like Cameron, in a way he's acting in the best traditions of the tory party in doing what's necessary to win, but he's shat on his own side and can't really expect to reunite it after the referendum. I'm sure he'll get a few well paid directorships from the multi national businesses he's helping in this vote after he's gone.

[Guest MattP]

Cheers Alf, good read those links.

 

I do feel it will find it's way through eventually, smaller scale I know but Ireland comes to mind with the Lisbon treaty, they didn't want what they were offered, so they just changed it and offered it up again until they got the answer they wanted, I can see a similar situation here.

 

They will have to get it done by 2019 though, politics is moving so far away from the centre across Europe they surely wouldn't have a chance after that election.

[Buce]

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, Alf - it speaks of a 'double democratic guarantee' that ttip can only be ratified by National governments and MEPs, not the European Commission:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/process/index_en.htm

[Guest MattP]

I actually like Cameron, in a way he's acting in the best traditions of the tory party in doing what's necessary to win, but he's shat on his own side and can't really expect to reunite it after the referendum. I'm sure he'll get a few well paid directorships from the multi national businesses he's helping in this vote after he's gone.

 

Sure they will find him a position inside it if he wants it.

 

There are already 10,000 people paid more than him in it now, it's an absolute goldmine for semi-retired politicians.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10847979/10000-European-Union-officials-better-paid-than-David-Cameron.html

[Guest MattP]

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, Alf - it speaks of a 'double democratic guarentee' that ttip can only be ratified by National governments and MEPs, not the European Commission:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/process/index_en.htm

 

So it only needs a majority? It can't be vetoed by individual governments?

 

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152276.pdf

 

And the final decision comes with a double democratic guarantee. Only a majority of both EU governments and MEPs can approve.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, Alf - it speaks of a 'double democratic guarentee' that ttip can only be ratified by National governments and MEPs, not the European Commission:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/process/index_en.htm

 

 

That's part of the answer, Buce, but if you look closely, it doesn't give a commitment that national parliaments will have a say (the "national governments" refers to Cameron & his 27 opposite numbers at the European Council).

 

Elsewhere (including in a UK Parliament document that I linked to - might need to copy and paste into browser), there are statements that it is "likely" that TTIP has "mixed competence" status, meaning that it WOULD require the approval of all 28 national parliaments......and my guess is that's highly unlikely to happen.

 

However, I can't see any definitive confirmation that it will have "mixed competence" status. So, there's still a possibility it might just be debated by national parliaments, then voted on at European Council (Cameron & opposite numbers) and then at the European Parliament. I think that its status may depend on precisely what areas are covered by the final draft treaty - they currently expect it to be "mixed competence" (the treaty with Canada is, I think), but that is not definitive yet.

[Dodgy Bob]

Do you think it's fair the treasury tells us we'll be £4,300 per family worse off in fourteen years time when the data used for that can't predict economic figures correctly six months in advance?

They produced a report which made the assumptions and models used very clear and described the outcome as estimates, not certainties. That's exactly the kind of analysis I personally want, from both sides, although I've only had it from remain.

Some dim media sources have spun that estimate into a certainty, but there's not much you can do about dim media and its consumers.