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

[SMX11]

What on earth has the shit hole that is Coalville got to do with the EU debate? The protectionist nationalism which I think you are describing doesn't exist anymore, the BNP is a corpse.

The EU is a solution to an out of date question. European trade is becoming less and less relevant every year and any suggestion that we wouldn't have access to the market is silly. The world is far more open to free trade than it used to be and we should be looking to get a foothold into the developing markets in asia and south america in particular.

Not be shackled to only one trade bloc which forbids us to sign FTA's with other nations and under represents us on global bodies.

[Frank to be]

Coalville is relevant because it's an example of what England looks like when there is no international influence. I agree we need closer ties with Asia and South America but you don't become more globalised by cutting off your neighbours. The EU might have problems but nothing that can't be better resolved together.

[Webbo]

Cameron is referring to the cabinet when he says they can't campaign against the govt position. There are arguments for and against that position.

[ADK]

I'm not sure global free trade is as good as it sounds. Some competition between nation states is healthy. We risk being made slaves to global capitalism. Or slaves to global state authoritarianism.

[Alf Bentley]

"Everyone in government has signed up to the programme set out in the Conservative manifesto."

 

i would have said every Tory MP has signed up to the Conservative Manifesto. I guess it comes down to what "Everyone in government"  means, the Cabinet or the Tories for me it's the Tories in government.

 

 

I agree with Strokes' interpretation that "everyone in government" refers to ministers, not backbenchers.

 

The Tories won a majority in parliament (the legislature) so, unless there are parliamentary rebellions, they control the legislation passed by parliament (includes backbenchers).

Their leader also get to appoint ministers to form the government or executive, which mainly drafts and implements policy (does not include backbenchers).

 

Even if Cameron gets an EU deal that allows him to call for a Yes vote, he will surely fully expect some of his backbenchers to campaign for a No vote - and that won't be a problem. Any ministers who wanted to join them would have to resign as ministers (but not as MPs).

 

In practice, unless Cameron gets an exceptionally good deal (unlikely), I'd expect there to be at least 1 or 2 ministers who'll resign and campaign for a No vote, saying "we supported the manifesto to negotiate an acceptable deal - but the deal negotiated wasn't acceptable".

[Webbo]

I'm not sure global free trade is as good as it sounds. Some competition between nation states is healthy. We risk being made slaves to global capitalism. Or slaves to global state authoritarianism.

You talk as if we have a choice.

[ADK]

You talk as if we have a choice.

 

We do have a choice.

[leicsmac]

You talk as if we have a choice.

 

I sincerely hope that we do, otherwise the materialists and the objectivists truly have won.

 

Of course, that being said there are some issues that need to be fought globally and not from the point of view of individual nation states, and division between them could result in trouble further down the line. So closer agreements between countries is a good thing in that respect.

[Webbo]

We are a trading nation, we buy and sell goods to survive. We can't just pretend that globalisation isn't happening and hope that the rest of the world wants to buy our increasingly more expensive and less relevant goods and services because we're such nice people.

[leicsmac]

We are a trading nation, we buy and sell goods to survive. We can't just pretend that globalisation isn't happening and hope that the rest of the world wants to buy our increasingly more expensive and less relevant goods and services because we're such nice people.

 

I agree, which is why we need to be diverse in such things in order to stay relevant. Putting all of our eggs in one financial-services basket practically confined to London may not have been a good idea.

 

Other countries have proven that maintaining a competitive mass-manufacturing industry on the global stage with similar size, population and resources to our own is possible...so why abandon ours, except at the (very useful) highest-tech level? Let's have a solution that actually does some good and brings in jobs for the whole country, rather than just one part of it.

[Webbo]

I agree, which is why we need to be diverse in such things in order to stay relevant. Putting all of our eggs in one financial-services basket practically confined to London may not have been a good idea.

 

Other countries have proven that maintaining a competitive mass-manufacturing industry on the global stage with similar size, population and resources to our own is possible...so why abandon ours, except at the (very useful) highest-tech level? Let's have a solution that actually does some good and brings in jobs for the whole country, rather than just one part of it.

Who's abandoned it?

[Strokes]

I agree, which is why we need to be diverse in such things in order to stay relevant. Putting all of our eggs in one financial-services basket practically confined to London may not have been a good idea.

Other countries have proven that maintaining a competitive mass-manufacturing industry on the global stage with similar size, population and resources to our own is possible...so why abandon ours, except at the (very useful) highest-tech level? Let's have a solution that actually does some good and brings in jobs for the whole country, rather than just one part of it.

I couldn't agree more, we seem to have long forgotten the manufacturing industry and seem resigned to importing everything because its cheaper. We can do better for less, we just need the right conditions to thrive.

[leicsmac]

Who's abandoned it?

 

Car-making industry - dead.

Shipbuilding industry - dead.

 

That's just two examples. And we've never even tried manufacturing consumer electronics and other hardware on a large level - or if we did it didn't last long.

 

Also, from the employment sector, some people are much much better suited to manufacturing jobs than service jobs. I think that being a country that offers both on a large scale might not be a bad idea.

[Sir Fynwy]

Car-making industry - dead.

Shipbuilding industry - dead.

That's just two examples. And we've never even tried manufacturing consumer electronics and other hardware on a large level - or if we did it didn't last long.

Also, from the employment sector, some people are much much better suited to manufacturing jobs than service jobs. I think that being a country that offers both on a large scale might not be a bad idea.

The UK exports 4 million cars a year, hardly a dead industry.

[Webbo]

Car-making industry - dead.

Shipbuilding industry - dead.

 

That's just two examples. And we've never even tried manufacturing consumer electronics and other hardware on a large level - or if we did it didn't last long.

 

Also, from the employment sector, some people are much much better suited to manufacturing jobs than service jobs. I think that being a country that offers both on a large scale might not be a bad idea.

Yeah but who's responsible? It wasn't a deliberate govt policy. Those industries died (not sure you can say that about car making, although it's all foreign owned) because other countries did them better and cheaper.

[davieG]

I agree with Strokes' interpretation that "everyone in government" refers to ministers, not backbenchers.

 

The Tories won a majority in parliament (the legislature) so, unless there are parliamentary rebellions, they control the legislation passed by parliament (includes backbenchers).

Their leader also get to appoint ministers to form the government or executive, which mainly drafts and implements policy (does not include backbenchers).

 

Even if Cameron gets an EU deal that allows him to call for a Yes vote, he will surely fully expect some of his backbenchers to campaign for a No vote - and that won't be a problem. Any ministers who wanted to join them would have to resign as ministers (but not as MPs).

 

In practice, unless Cameron gets an exceptionally good deal (unlikely), I'd expect there to be at least 1 or 2 ministers who'll resign and campaign for a No vote, saying "we supported the manifesto to negotiate an acceptable deal - but the deal negotiated wasn't acceptable".

That sounds eminently logical I'm convinced.......

 

Confirmed by this......

 

 

 

Downing Street has denied that David Cameron has ordered his ministers to back him in the EU referendum or leave the government.

The PM had told journalists everyone in government had "signed up" to his plans as set out in the Tory manifesto.

This led to criticism from some Conservative MPs, who said ministers should be free to vote as they wish.

But Mr Cameron's spokeswoman said reporters at the G7 Summit in Germany had "over interpreted his remarks".

She said he had referred to the period of the negotiations, rather than the referendum campaign itself.

 

[Rincewind]

They can hardly admit it.

[Guest MattP]

Glad he has renaged on this but how did Cameron seriously think he was going to get away with demanding support from cabinet ministers to stay in the EU?

 

I think he's going to be very surprised just how many of his MP's are going to support the out campaign, if I wanted to be run by a load of nutty socialists obssesed with climate change and ever closer union we'd vote Green instead of Tory.

[Alf Bentley]

If I wanted to be run by a load of nutty socialists obssesed with climate change and ever closer union we'd vote Green instead of Tory.

 

 

Sounds ideal to me! *  

 

So, it looks like I was wrong about ministers having to resign their posts to campaign for "No" in the referendum. Sounds like a repeat of the 1970s Wilson Common Market referendum with government ministers campaigning on either side. 

 

* A point of clarification: I'm only in favour of "ever closer union" if it's run by nutty socialists obsessed with climate change and not by deregulating Thatcherite twats running the world in the interests of global corporations and their beneficiaries. 

[Guest MattP]

Sounds ideal to me! 

 

So, it looks like I was wrong about ministers having to resign their posts to campaign for "No" in the referendum. Sounds like a repeat of the 1970s Wilson Common Market referendum with government ministers campaigning on either side. 

 

I think Cameron meant it when he said it, I just think since then someone has had a kind word in his ear and told him if he wants to see out his tenure until 2020 he'll need to let people decide on whichever side they will want to be on.

 

Not allowing ministers to be on the out side would have allowed his backbenchers to absolutely tear him to shreads.

[Guest MattP]

How are you planning to vote? I still have you down as an old school Labour out man at the minute.

 

I actually think the TTIP deal could be the secret weapon of the 'out' campaign, as soon as people on the left realise the EU could be the thing that privatises the NHS and will install so much US style regulation across our continent I think the argument of our place in the EU could shift away from the usual subject of immigration and sovereignty.

[Alf Bentley]

How are you planning to vote? I still have you down as an old school Labour out man at the minute.

 

I actually think the TTIP deal could be the secret weapon of the 'out' campaign, as soon as people on the left realise the EU could be the thing that privatises the NHS and will install so much US style regulation across our continent I think the argument of our place in the EU could shift away from the usual subject of immigration and sovereignty.

 

Undecided. Instinctively, I'm an "in" voter as capitalism has gone global and I think that democratic politics needs to do the same (EU political union being a step in that direction).

 

However, it's issues like the TTIP and the growing EU emphasis on deregulation (among other things) that leaves me undecided. I'll look at the issues more closely as the referendum approaches.

 

On the other hand, from a left-wing perspective, even a "right-tilting" EU is to the left of a neo-Thatcherite Tory Britain. Despite Cameron's "one nation" rhetoric, I see the Tories as a very right-wing party in their economic policies and their social consequences. If freed from EU constraints, I see a sustained period of Tory government leading to massive divisions and inequalities, and basically devastating my country socially.....continued EU membership could act as a bulwark against that, even with TTIP etc.

 

I'm not some sort of Brussels centralist, though. I strongly support the subsidiarity principle - that power should be exercised at the lowest level possible: e.g. local community, city, region or nation, in preference to EU level. That needs to be applied more extensively across Europe, with less centralisation.

[ADK]

Trouble with that argument is it basically boils downs to wanting in because an unelected EU parliament is better than being run by the Tories. We should instead ask if there is anything we need to do to our own democracy to make it more democratic. I think some degree of PR is necessary. It isn't right that a party with 36.9% of a vote and less than 25% support from eligible voters, can have 5 years to do as they please. This isn't good for the country whether it is a Labour or Conservative government.

 

I don't think the EU parliament represents the UK very well. We have no MEPs in the largest alliance (EPP). Most people don't really have a clue what alliance their party of allegiance is involved with and the set up means you aren't sure who your MEP will hang out with anyway because they may have to join a different group.

 

The majority of other member states want a fiscal union with member's own government budgets scrutinised and approved by Brussels. I don't think this is good for the UK. We are quite capable of running our own economy.

 

You don't have to be a big economy to have power in the global market. You just need to have something somebody else wants. Which we do still have in the form of a relatively skilled workforce, and good social and economic infrastructure.

[Guest MattP]

Trouble with that argument is it basically boils downs to wanting in because an unelected EU parliament is better than being run by the Tories. We should instead ask if there is anything we need to do to our own democracy to make it more democratic. I think some degree of PR is necessary. It isn't right that a party with 36.9% of a vote and less than 25% support from eligible voters, can have 5 years to do as they please. This isn't good for the country whether it is a Labour or Conservative government.

 

I don't think the EU parliament represents the UK very well. We have no MEPs in the largest alliance (EPP). Most people don't really have a clue what alliance their party of allegiance is involved with and the set up means you aren't sure who your MEP will hang out with anyway because they may have to join a different group.

 

The majority of other member states want a fiscal union with member's own government budgets scrutinised and approved by Brussels. I don't think this is good for the UK. We are quite capable of running our own economy.

 

You don't have to be a big economy to have power in the global market. You just need to have something somebody else wants. Which we do still have in the form of a relatively skilled workforce, and good social and economic infrastructure.

 

Who else is legitimate though? For what's it worth I wouldn't bother even mentioning the ones who didn't go out to vote, if they aren't prepared to vote for anyone I don't think we can use them as evidence that a current government shouldn't be in power, the only other government you could really argue that would be legitimate is a Tory/Labour one or a Tory/UKIP one.

 

As for the EU you can't make a vote based on what government is here, that has and will continue to change over time.

 

I personally think if we don't come out we certainly need some sort of two tier system where the stronger economic nations work together and the smaller ones do the same, maybe even restrict freedom of movement between the two tiers, after all it's doing Poland no good losing all their best people to richer nations, the one size fits all approach certainly isn't working.

 

I'm very worried about this though now, I have fundamental doubts about the legitimacy and fairness of this referendum given it appears the Yes campaign is going to be allowed to spend more than the No campaign and similar to Ireland it appears some of that will be funded by the EU itself, the BBC have a duty to be impartial but receive funding from the same body, the bill being rushed through today doesn't appear to cover these issues.

 

I'm also very concerned about how the establishment will react to a 'Yes' vote, I think they'll see it as a mandate to really plough ahead with their ever closer union and take us to the centre of it. Where do those people vote who want no part of that but desperately want to stay in the free trade agreement?

 

Our politicians don't want to be held accountable by their people and ever closer union into this is the perfect way to solve that problem, less and less tough decision making for them and they collect the same money for doing so.

[Captain...]

Trouble with that argument is it basically boils downs to wanting in because an unelected EU parliament is better than being run by the Tories. We should instead ask if there is anything we need to do to our own democracy to make it more democratic. I think some degree of PR is necessary. It isn't right that a party with 36.9% of a vote and less than 25% support from eligible voters, can have 5 years to do as they please. This isn't good for the country whether it is a Labour or Conservative government.

 

I don't think the EU parliament represents the UK very well. We have no MEPs in the largest alliance (EPP). Most people don't really have a clue what alliance their party of allegiance is involved with and the set up means you aren't sure who your MEP will hang out with anyway because they may have to join a different group.

 

The majority of other member states want a fiscal union with member's own government budgets scrutinised and approved by Brussels. I don't think this is good for the UK. We are quite capable of running our own economy.

 

You don't have to be a big economy to have power in the global market. You just need to have something somebody else wants. Which we do still have in the form of a relatively skilled workforce, and good social and economic infrastructure.

 

Re: your first point, I think it is becoming clearer than ever after this election that we need some sort of PR, the disproportionate number of seats per vote received by the SNP and UKIP should hopefully trigger some sort of reform, although the party that has benefitted from FPTP is the one that can make a change and I don't see that happening.

 

Re: MEP elections, reform is badly needed here, we should be voting for candidates of the EPP/S&P/ECR not for candidates of our national parties, it makes no sense that there are no candidates put up by the EPP, the biggest voting bloc in the EP, in the UK. All it does is encourage entrenched voting and discourage interest in European politics.