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

[Webbo]

I'm not getting what I want so it's not democratic.

The only people who are saying that are the ones saying only 20% of the population voted for this govt and they tend to be remainers.

[Great Boos Up]

People will vote Leave or Remain for a range of different reasons.

 

It sounds as if your tendency towards Leave is for practical, pragmatic reasons - integration getting too deep and too wide too quickly. Others on here clearly see the nation state as the highest valid level for democracy (or for enlightened dictatorship in Thracian's case  ). Others again are not nationalists, but support Leave because they are dissatisfied with democracy at EU level. 

 

I was very close to ending up in the "Leave for democracy" category, but have now decided to vote Remain. I'm pretty concerned about the lack of democracy under EMU/Eurozone, in particular, and where this is heading politically and economically. Under EMU/Stability Pact, all EU nations are obliged to keep deficits and debt low at all times. That's a reasonable ambition over the economic cycle, but sometimes, during a downturn (or after a crash!), the stimulus of higher public spending or lower taxes is necessary to get the economy moving again. Instead, struggling economies around Europe are being forced to cut, cut and cut again, despite low growth and high unemployment. This inflexibility isn't working - and these struggling economies keep needing bailouts. If EMU/ Eurozone/Stability Pact isn't reformed to allow nations more flexibility, that is completely unsustainable - and very damaging. My hope of a car crash being avoided is because it is a slow-motion car crash: the crisis will eventually become so obvious that reforms allowing greater flexibility will be introduced - or a few nations will be allowed to leave the Euro on a controlled basis, creating a 2-tier Europe, I hope.... 

 

The EEC/EU was very diverse from the 1970s to the 2000s, but dealt with that diversity pretty successfully. A seriously under-developed nation (Ireland) and 3 nations that had recently been under-developed AND dictatorships (Spain, Portugal & Greece) were helped to become stable democracies, valuable trading partners and nations whose level of development was no longer far behind the rest. The same process started with the former Communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the combination of global financial crisis, Eurozone debt crisis & the inflexible Stability Pact has been a triple whammy that has sent that successful process into reverse. So, the EU CAN handle diversity - it just needs to take it a bit slower, not rushing into excessive integration of diverse economies, and to allow countries much more flexibilty in their policies.

 

Here are my main reasons for voting Remain:

- The aforementioned hope that the Eurozone IS capable of reform

- Serious risk of a return to violence in N. Ireland if we re-militarize the Irish border (which we'd have to do, surely, if we're serious about "controlling our borders"? Non-EU migrants wouldn't be an issue as Rep. of Ireland isn't in Schengen, but EU migrants certainly would as Rep. of Ireland will surely remain in the Single Market, so subject to the free movement of EU labour/citizens).

- Probability of Scotland leaving the UK within a few years, which I wouldn't like and which would create ANOTHER land border that we'd need to control if Brexiteers are serious about immigration, which I assume they are.

- For reasons of self-interest, the EU27 will probably take a hard line renegotiating trade deals and we don't hold a strong hand as trade with the EU is much more important to the UK than trade with the UK is to the EU (45%-53% of trade v. 16% of trade). In particular, if we want to opt out of "free movement of labour", we'll surely HAVE to be outside the Single Market...and on what terms re. tariffs etc?

- Uncertainty alone will cause a 2-3-year downturn, at a time when our growth and finances are already a problem.

- It generally takes many years to negotiate a good trade deal, yet the assumption is that the UK will have such deals in place on good terms within 2 years (after which we'll be outside EU trade deals)?!

- Next few years in the UK: likely economic downturn + continued austerity + continued high immigration -> Serious problems with a creaking NHS & serious risk of social unrest / rise of Far Right as people get skint, public services decline & there's still perceived to be a massive influx of immigrants (with Brexit, even IDS doesn't expect immigration levels to fall significantly until after 2020).

- Brexit could also exacerbate economic problems and social unrest on the continent - at a time when unemployment and discontent are already high and the Far Right is on the rise

- People will vote Leave for all sorts of reasons, but Brexit risks being seen on the continent as a selfish, unfriendly act, which could generate a lot of hostility against us, turning relations with our neighbours toxic

- In the UK, too, all sorts of nasty Far Right types will (wrongly) see a Brexit vote as a massive boost, giving them carte blanche to pursue their ugly politics.

- If relations between the UK and its neighbours do become toxic, will that undermine the strength of NATO? How will that affect security vis-a-vis Russia etc?

- There is presumably a reason why the vast majority of City types and the vast majority of scientists are pro-Remain (e.g. Swiss scientists are now excluded from EU joint science projects after opting out of "free movement")

 

I accept that some of those risks may well be avoided, but some definitely won't - and even a couple of those risks becoming reality could be disastrous.

 

I accept that Brexit MIGHT make things better long-term, if we do good trade deals, handle an enormous amount of legislation brilliantly - and particularly if the Eurozone continues to enforce failing policies.....but it MIGHT make things worse long-term.

 

It seems like a gamble either way - but, on balance, Remain seems much the better gamble.

I have read this through many times and unfortunately I do not agree with any single sentence.

Although I can see you have many worries and think it's a gamble I would suggest we are a European country of great financial importance, our economy is fine in a global sense. We are still NATO and commonwealth and trade will go on (money makes the world go round). I don't want to respond to each sentence but the end result will be this: people will vote on mass to the lowest common denominator. Immigration!

[Thracian]

His change in position doesn't make logical sense given his stated reasons.

He says he's against an EU Army as he sees that as dangerous - yet Britain coming out of the EU does nothing to stop things going into that direction. In fact, it could conceivably make that direction more likely.

It would make more sense to back a Remain vote on the understanding the UK government opposes an the idea of an EU Army (which it does).

 

The referendum vote doesn't offer conditional options.

 

But my reading of the ongoing situation doesn't point to being involved with either army against the Russians. It points to getting wised up and wising up a few others on both sides. 

 

I've long advocated a much more positive relationship being developed with Russia for all our differences because, in the end, I don't really see Russia as naturally disconnected with the West, nor do I see anything to gain from continually antagonising such a close.capable and powerful neighbour.

 

Indeed i've long wondered why the West keeps provoking the Russian bear. 

 

 

Then I typed an innocent question into the internet based on who might benefit from a Russian/EU set-to with the possible involvement of others.

 

The answer didn't surprise me. Being an untrusting sort I've long had my suspicions because too many things didn't really add up. .  

 

I'll leave everyone to their own thoughts on the question I asked. 

 

But it reminded me of a strange comment made to me a few years back, though I can't remember where and by whom....

 

"The Time Is Coming - And Soon".

[bovril]

"The Time Is Coming - And Soon".

 

Probably.

 

Thank **** we've won the Premier League already.

[johnny the fox]

I appreciate that I'm a gasbag, but it seems like an important - and complicated - decision to me. You apparently see it as a simple decision. Fair dos.

 

Why not humour me and show me why I'm wrong on just one of my points. Northern Ireland, say....

 

After Brexit, we'll take back control of our borders to restrict EU immigration, apparently. We currently have an open land border with the Republic of Ireland, a country that will still be in the EU with free movement of EU citizens.

So, unless we reinstate a tightly-controlled border between the Republic and the North, in theory thousands of Romanians and Poles could fly to Dublin, pop up to the North - and then anywhere else in the UK.

If we do set up a series of border posts, they will be viewed as a provocation and a target by dissident Republicans, won't they? Should armed forces be assigned to protect them - and wouldn't that risk undermining the Peace Process and restarting violence between at least some IRA elements, Loyalists & the British army, maybe spilling over into terrorist attacks in England?

 

I might indeed be wrong about this and about all my other points. Or I might be right and you might be wrong, Seems like a whole series of massive gambles, to me (though Remain involves some big gambles, too....just fewer, I reckon).

 

What nationality was your nurse? 

i actually think some of the reasons you have highlighted are spurious and without any real merit... the idea the IRA will gain any traction from us leaving the EU is scraping the bottom of the barrel of the fear mongering... I actually find it incredible that life long nationalists such as adams and mcguinness are now all for a federal Europe where northern Irelands influence will be puny .. the same goes for the scot nats...it defies logic...

[Izzy]

Is it next Thursday yet? I'm so bored of this now and can't wait until it's over. I hope you've all enjoyed your mass debate over the last few months but I'm ready to move on to something else. I'm still struggling to find a compelling reason to vote either way, so I'll probably vote remain.

[Steven]

Is it next Thursday yet? I'm so bored of this now and can't wait until it's over. I hope you've all enjoyed your mass debate over the last few months but I'm ready to move on to something else. I'm still struggling to find a compelling reason to vote either way, so I'll probably vote remain.

 

I suspect this line of thinking is not unique.

[apple987]

Tbh even if the public actually votes out I'm pretty sure cameron will find a way around it.

[Wymsey]

Are prisoners allowed to vote?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Are prisoners allowed to vote?

You did that on purpose didn't you!

[Dr The Singh]

Are prisoners allowed to vote?

Are women allowed to vote??

[Cheese]

Tbh even if the public actually votes out I'm pretty sure cameron will find a way around it.

Unless we vote out by more than 5% I'm sure the postal votes will alter the outcome.

[Carl the Llama]

The last page or so since Alf took the time to make that long post discussing his conclusions have only served to reinforce my belief that a not insignificant amount of Brexit votes are going to be the result of ill-informed decision making.  To quote my current kitchen porter on the issue:  "I think I'll probably vote to leave the EU but to be honest I don't really know too much about it... aren't they taking like millions of pounds from us each week?"  I'm not going to get into that one in detail since it's been done to death and obviously everybody on here is by now well aware that we're not even a top 3 contributor despite a lot of the general public seeming to think we're propping the Union up with all the free money we give them, money which would definitely 100% absolutely be spent on "[building] a new NHS hospital every week" (as per vote leave's official referendum pamphlet). 

 

I found it interesting to see a fellow like Thracian - who I can tell from his own long posts has clearly been keenly following developments to do with the referendum - calling for more discussion of the potential for Turkey to join the EU.  Why?  How could anybody think Turkey stands any chance of becoming an EU member-state in its current form?  If Turkey ever joins the EU it will be as a vastly reformed democracy entirely unrecognisable to the anybody familiar with the country and its governance today.  Let's leave that discussion until we're talking about a country that is even mildly close to meeting the requirements for accession, right now such debate is pointless and distractionary - which explains why it's another key point raised on the vote leave pamphlet

 

I would be much happier if people were talking about the farcical Strasbourg trips, the methodology of CFP, or any of the economic mismanagement points raised by Alf in their vague rebuttals of the guy's decision-making process (see, I'm even giving you hints on where to hang your secessionary petard, flippantly declaring your informed reasons for Brexit should be as easy as doing your GCSE English homework now).

[Alf Bentley]

a)I don't see why it should and if it did are we really going to be dictated to by terrorists?

 

b)I want to keep the union but not at any price. As for the borders and immigration from Ireland and Scotland I'm sure we could make our own arrangements with those countries for their citizens. If illegals wanted to use those countries as a point of entry into the remainder of the UK it doesn't mean they'd have the right to stay.

 

c) Come on Alf, you don't really think those types are waiting for our permission to hate or that we're more likely to agree with them if we're not in the EU? Extreme racist parties will gain far more by having mass immigration forced upon us and having the legitimate concerns of people dismissed.

 

 

a) Although N. Ireland has mainly been peaceful for years and terrorist attacks in GB have ceased, dissident Republican terrorists have launched isolated attacks on the police. As they do not accept British rule in Ulster, they would surely be hostile to the installation of numerous British border control points. Such control points would be a sitting target without military protection. The return of the British Army would surely provoke hostility and violent attacks well beyond the current tiny minority of dissidents. In turn, no doubt Loyalists would retaliate, as would the Army. A spiral back into violence, including terrorism in GB, would be a very real risk, surely? No, we shouldn't be dictated to by terrorists, but after several decades of violence a Peace Process was established on terms grudgingly acceptable to all parties, and it has largely been successful. We'd have to be absolutely crazy to run a serious risk of returning to violence and terrorism.

 

b) Yes, I imagine we could come to an arrangement re. Irish/Scottish citizens. If we wanted to "control our borders" to keep out Poles and Romanians, though, we'd have to go to considerable expense setting up border posts, employing a lot of extra staff. Even then, quite a number would get into England/Wales illegally. This might boost the black economy, with dodgy employers paying them low rates and making them work long hours or in unsafe conditions, cash in hand to undercut rates for legally employed labour. Also, aren't there about 1 million Poles already here (DK how many other EU nationalities)? As they entered under "free movement of labour", presumably they didn't need any special documents for immigration entry or work permits. So, how would the authorities tell the difference between a Pole who entered legally in 2015 and a Pole who entered illegally in 2019 or whenever? Or would we be deporting lots of immigrants who are already settled here?

 

c) No, a tiny minority of race haters will and do exist, no permission required. But other factors could greatly swell their numbers. You've rightly mentioned immigration  We'd still be in the EU with free movement of labour for at least 2 years. Gove said that there'd be no significant drop in immigration until after 2020. How many Brexit voters know that? How will they react if immigration remains high for years after Brexit (non-EU immigration is higher and we already have control over that)? Then throw in a probable recession for at least 2-3 years due to uncertainty over investment, negotiation of new trade terms etc - at a time when the public finances/services are already in a mess. Economic instability played a big part in the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Anti-European hostility could also be generated if the EU is perceived to be taking a tough line in negotiations with the UK over Brexit or trade deals - and I can imagine the press ramping that up. That could all make for a truly toxic atmosphere.

 

I'm not denying that some of the things I've mentioned might not happen....but there's a very real risk that some or all of them will.

 

The Brexit campaign paints this glowing picture of a brand new dawn, where everything will be better - and almost instantly. We'll just take back our independence and life will be a bed of roses.

 

The truth is that we might or might not be better off in the long-term, depending on a multitude of factors affecting the UK and the EU. But we would almost certainly face several extremely difficult, dangerous years before reaching the promised land.....and we might find that the promised land doesn't even exist and life is worse long-term. 

[Strokes]

The last page or so since Alf took the time to make that long post discussing his conclusions have only served to reinforce my belief that a not insignificant amount of Brexit votes are going to be the result of ill-informed decision making.  To quote my current kitchen porter on the issue:  "I think I'll probably vote to leave the EU but to be honest I don't really know too much about it... aren't they taking like millions of pounds from us each week?"  I'm not going to get into that one in detail since it's been done to death and obviously everybody on here is by now well aware that we're not even a top 3 contributor despite a lot of the general public seeming to think we're propping the Union up with all the free money we give them, money which would definitely 100% absolutely be spent on "[building] a new NHS hospital every week" (as per vote leave's official referendum pamphlet). 

 

I found it interesting to see a fellow like Thracian - who I can tell from his own long posts has clearly been keenly following developments to do with the referendum - calling for more discussion of the potential for Turkey to join the EU.  Why?  How could anybody think Turkey stands any chance of becoming an EU member-state in its current form?  If Turkey ever joins the EU it will be as a vastly reformed democracy entirely unrecognisable to the anybody familiar with the country and its governance today.  Let's leave that discussion until we're talking about a country that is even mildly close to meeting the requirements for accession, right now such debate is pointless and distractionary - which explains why it's another key point raised on the vote leave pamphlet

 

I would be much happier if people were talking about the farcical Strasbourg trips, the methodology of CFP, or any of the economic mismanagement points raised by Alf in their vague rebuttals of the guy's decision-making process (see, I'm even giving you hints on where to hang your secessionary petard, flippantly declaring your informed reasons for Brexit should be as easy as doing your GCSE English homework now).

We are a top 3 contributor, we are third.

[Mark_w]

I have read this through many times and unfortunately I do not agree with any single sentence.

Although I can see you have many worries and think it's a gamble I would suggest we are a European country of great financial importance, our economy is fine in a global sense. We are still NATO and commonwealth and trade will go on (money makes the world go round). I don't want to respond to each sentence but the end result will be this: people will vote on mass to the lowest common denominator. Immigration!

 

Why not?

[Strokes]

a) Although N. Ireland has mainly been peaceful for years and terrorist attacks in GB have ceased, dissident Republican terrorists have launched isolated attacks on the police. As they do not accept British rule in Ulster, they would surely be hostile to the installation of numerous British border control points. Such control points would be a sitting target without military protection. The return of the British Army would surely provoke hostility and violent attacks well beyond the current tiny minority of dissidents. In turn, no doubt Loyalists would retaliate, as would the Army. A spiral back into violence, including terrorism in GB, would be a very real risk, surely? No, we shouldn't be dictated to by terrorists, but after several decades of violence a Peace Process was established on terms grudgingly acceptable to all parties, and it has largely been successful. We'd have to be absolutely crazy to run a serious risk of returning to violence and terrorism.

 

b) Yes, I imagine we could come to an arrangement re. Irish/Scottish citizens. If we wanted to "control our borders" to keep out Poles and Romanians, though, we'd have to go to considerable expense setting up border posts, employing a lot of extra staff. Even then, quite a number would get into England/Wales illegally. This might boost the black economy, with dodgy employers paying them low rates and making them work long hours or in unsafe conditions, cash in hand to undercut rates for legally employed labour. Also, aren't there about 1 million Poles already here (DK how many other EU nationalities)? As they entered under "free movement of labour", presumably they didn't need any special documents for immigration entry or work permits. So, how would the authorities tell the difference between a Pole who entered legally in 2015 and a Pole who entered illegally in 2019 or whenever? Or would we be deporting lots of immigrants who are already settled here?

 

c) No, a tiny minority of race haters will and do exist, no permission required. But other factors could greatly swell their numbers. You've rightly mentioned immigration  We'd still be in the EU with free movement of labour for at least 2 years. Gove said that there'd be no significant drop in immigration until after 2020. How many Brexit voters know that? How will they react if immigration remains high for years after Brexit (non-EU immigration is higher and we already have control over that)? Then throw in a probable recession for at least 2-3 years due to uncertainty over investment, negotiation of new trade terms etc - at a time when the public finances/services are already in a mess. Economic instability played a big part in the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Anti-European hostility could also be generated if the EU is perceived to be taking a tough line in negotiations with the UK over Brexit or trade deals - and I can imagine the press ramping that up. That could all make for a truly toxic atmosphere.

 

I'm not denying that some of the things I've mentioned might not happen....but there's a very real risk that some or all of them will.

 

The Brexit campaign paints this glowing picture of a brand new dawn, where everything will be better - and almost instantly. We'll just take back our independence and life will be a bed of roses.

 

The truth is that we might or might not be better off in the long-term, depending on a multitude of factors affecting the UK and the EU. But we would almost certainly face several extremely difficult, dangerous years before reaching the promised land.....and we might find that the promised land doesn't even exist and life is worse long-term.

Briefly on point b.

It's not difficult to set up a system to be able to tell who was before and after freedom of movement. They all still require national insurance number so the the system is built.

[Carl the Llama]

We are a top 3 contributor, we are third.

Only in the sense that Spurs finished 2nd in our 2-horse race to the title.  We're behind Germany, France and Italy in that order.

[Strokes]

Why not?

Probably because it was a long post, with lots of sentences.

[Mark_w]

Probably because it was a long post, with lots of sentences.

 

Still I thought it was a really good post, if someone confidently disagrees with it it'd be nice to get a well thought out response rather than 'nah disagree' with no attempt to actually present any informed counter arguments.

[Strokes]

Still I thought it was a really good post, if someone confidently disagrees with it it'd be nice to get a well thought out response rather than 'nah disagree' with no attempt to actually present any informed counter arguments.

It was a good post, I agreed with a lot of it. Not the need for policing the borders etc but I've posted that. I can see why someone wouldn't want respond to every sentence though

[Alf Bentley]

Briefly on point b.

It's not difficult to set up a system to be able to tell who was before and after freedom of movement. They all still require national insurance number so the the system is built.

 

 

They wouldn't have N.I. numbers if they'd entered illegally and were working in the black economy.

 

I also wonder whether they're all registered for N.I. now: e.g. spud-picking gangs run by gangmasters, subject to very few inspections. When I did such work in my youth, it was never declared for N.I, though admittedly that was back in the early 80s.

 

Isn't there also a risk of ENCOURAGING greater EU immigration in the short-term? I think that I'm right in saying that "freedom of movement" will continue for at least the 2+ years it would take us to leave the EU. Wouldn't that encourage Eastern Europeans and others to get in legally while they could? 

[Strokes]

Only in the sense that Spurs finished 2nd in our 2-horse race to the title. We're behind Germany, France and Italy in that order.

Now Carl, you can't disagree with boris when he uses gross figure and then use them yourself to make a point. It's not cricket pal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf

Check out the pie chart page 17.

[Strokes]

They wouldn't have N.I. numbers if they'd entered illegally and were working in the black economy.

I also wonder whether they're all registered for N.I. now: e.g. spud-picking gangs run by gangmasters, subject to very few inspections. When I did such work in my youth, it was never declared for N.I, though admittedly that was back in the early 80s.

Isn't there also a risk of ENCOURAGING greater EU immigration in the short-term? I think that I'm right in saying that "freedom of movement" will continue for at least the 2+ years it would take us to leave the EU. Wouldn't that encourage Eastern Europeans and others to get in legally while they could?

There might be a risk of a short term increase but there will be plenty of short term hardship going on. We can't keep increasing the population by a city a year, forever.

If they are on the black market they will need to sort themselves out, or be counted amongst the illegals. Like you say there will be a grace period.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not sure why borders need armed guards, if you need visas to work here and can't claim benefits. I don't see the need for force.

 

 

To protect British immigration officials from attacks by dissident Republicans (not immigrants from the continent). 

 

Major elements of the Peace Process were:

- The gradual elimination of border controls between Eire and N. Ireland

- The gradual removal of the British armed forces, once it became clear that the IRA ceasefire/disarmament was real

- The replacement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

 

Even now, there are very occasional attacks on PSNI officers. If British border posts were re-established (by an occupying power, as they see it), they would surely be much more of a target?