Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Jubal on February 23, 2016, 11:02:58 PM
-
It's a-coming, and the starting gun has been fired!
Right, I'll attempt to write a relatively unbiased starting piece to clarify the situation:
Unsurprisingly the Prime Minister decided to stay in the EU, so now all the main party leaders in the UK except Nigel Farage are backing the Remain campaign. There are some heavy hitters for Leave now too though, notably Boris Johnson, mayor of London and expert in making everyone think he's a lot less savvy than he actually is. The Conservative party is badly split over the issue and many grassroots members (who are far more Eurosceptic than the parliamentary party) are reportedly very unhappy with Cameron. Some Labour MPs will also back Leave, though it's not seen as such an important issue by Jeremy Corbyn (who is relatively Eurosceptic for a Labour leader) so the stakes are far lower for him. The Scottish Nationalists, Lib Dems, and Greens seem fairly united behind Remain, whereas UKIP have Leave as more or less their raison d'etre.
In terms of the actual campaign, the Leave campaigners are hitting from two main angles - right wing "Burkean" types like Michael Gove believe in national sovreignty as a fundamental good in itself. On the left, people like George Galloway are pushing the idea that EU regulations stop the UK becoming a true socialist redistributive state (which arguably ignores the fact that there are a few other things in the way there, but there we go...) Both wings are tapping into a lot of resentment among lower middle class and working class voters who worry that the EU is a net drain on the UK's public finances, and that freedom of movement across Europe opens the door to high immigration resulting in depressed wages and creates more risk of foreign extremists entering the country.
Meanwhile the Remain campaign is similarly split - ranging from a few federalists (the EU's most strong partisans, mostly Lib Dems), to leftist EU reformers who want to see the system massively democratised and made less friendly to corporate business, to right-wing pro-business campaigners who value the EU primarily for its access to the continental markets. The campaign so far has been pushing mostly on a message of jobs and trade, and also the security benefits gained by cross-border cooperation. This may be effective, on a similar model to the No campaign in Scotland whose relentless focus on the economy won out, but has led to accusations of it being a rather workmanlike and lacklustre campaign that's not catching imaginations despite the backing of most of the political spectrum and indeed almost every other goverment to have weighed in on the issue.
And of course the inevitable recent polls:
22 Feb ICM REMAIN 42 LEAVE 40 (Nb only poll since renegotiation announced)
17 Feb Mori REMAIN 54 LEAVE 36
-
I don't know how I'm going to vote yet, I'm thinking probably to remain but it's exceedingly difficult to make an objective decision on this considering that there's so much conflicting data about the EU and I've not really any idea which bits are true.
I don't like the EU as it currently is but it seems like a good long term investment. I guess as a science doer I should vote to remain since the EU makes life a fair bit easier if I want to do science after I graduate.
-
I am emphatically in favour of remain. I genuinely don't particularly like how the EU works and think a lot of rubbish things about it need fixing (none of which Cameron bothered to focus on predictably), but the only sensible response to that IMO is "campaign to fix the EU".
It would be an economic disaster to leave, especially as countries like the US have already ruled out bilateral trade agreements and countries like India are desparate for us to stay in. If we left suddenly our exports and imports would shoot up in price and kill off a lot of smaller businesses very quickly indeed. We're fiscally a net contributor to the EU, sure, but that doesn't counterbalance the fact that our trade balance would be wrecked if we left. If we wanted to get access back into the single market we'd probably need to pay a high percentage of what we currently do to the EU and would still have to abide by a fair percentage of the rules, but we wouldn't get a seat at the negotiating table for the money.
It would also just be a massive faff for academia, travel, lots of stuff we pretty much take for granted, plus I don't trust the government to draft effective national equivalents for the EU's working rights and environmental legislation which would be two of the largest things that would suddenly cease to apply.
-
I'm another emphatic "remain", with very much the same views as Jubal. The EU could be rather better than it is, but the alternative is much worse in all sorts of ways.
Penty: there is a great deal of funding for science, and academia in general, from the EU, all of which would be cut off if we left, with no guarantee of any replacement at all from the UK government. There is also a lot of collaborative working with European universities and other institutions, all of which would be cut off too. If you want more information, there's a campaign group (Scientists for Europe?) that can probably tell you everything you want to know.
-
In truth penty, there isn't a definitive answer of whether it'll be better or not economically in the long run to leave.
I believe it'll be better to leave for the following reasons:
We'll cut out a large amount of admin bs and EU regulations which I don't think anyone can deny, slow down and sometimes disrupt both domestically and internationally. This also frees us up to trade and deal with only us in our best interests.
We'd have greater control on immigration, taking only the ones we need like Australia/Canada. Overall I believe we still have a positive effect from immigration but it can be made better with more control.
Our tourism will become a lot more profitable for obvious reasons. We already do pretty well considering our weather and food sucks.
Outside the EU trade is freer, what this means is we get and give more market driven trade.
Also to consider:
We'd still be able to trade with the US but as Jub said, it wouldn't be a free trade agreement, it'd be at regular tariff. Which wouldn't be so bad to be honest, we export more than we import from them. Currently the Eu doesn't have a free trade agreement with the US either but it's been in talks for a while, something called TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).
France would be (even bigger) dicks to us forever just because we're leaving their culture club.
In the short term things could (probably would) suck. GBP value will probably go down and the value of UK companies will lower due to becoming higher risk because nobody is certain what will happen if we leave. In the long term however both should rise above what is possible being in the EU because of the freer trade and the improvement in national output (or/and GDP) (the immigration thing again, cut the chaff coupled with using tarrifs in our favour).
We'd gain more sovereignty, things would be ours to succeed at or portugal up. It's my preference but other people like having less national power and trade it for a giant safety net.
-
Yes - I think the key argument for getting out is if you're determined that power over Britain should entirely reside in Westminster, which is a position one can take though I can't say I see why it's a particularly important principle in itself. Also if you're really convinced that EU regulation and EU immigration are major problems for us, which personally I'm not, but some people are.
What makes you think leaving the EU would improve tourism? Just the fact that fewer people could afford to go abroad?
I think it's not so much the safety net aspect of the EU that appeals to me personally, as the fact that I think it's a pretty effective tool for cooperating on things where we're stronger collaborating than being apart. Also stops international incidents and confrontations getting too bad, because we just shout at each other around tables in Brussels in situations where in the 19th century we'd have done more dangerous things like casually have a gunboat "get lost" in someone else's territorial waters etc. Academia would get badly screwed over by a Leave vote, undeniably, because of all the cooperative links that the EU facilitates and funds, which I think would be bad in the long run.
-
It's not that we leave the EU and then shut off all communications with Europe. Literally the same things will happen, academic collaboration won't be largely affected. You've bought into scaremongering there mate.
The European Research Council’s (ERC) own website states:
Q: Can a Principal Investigator who holds a permanent position in a research organisation in the US apply for an ERC Advanced Grant with a Host Institution located in Europe?
A: Yes. A Principal Investigator engaged in the US or in a third country can apply for an ERC grant in cooperation with a Host Institution in Europe as long as (s)he will be engaged and hosted by a Host Institution based in an EU Member State or an Associated Country.
You don’t need to be a member of the European Union to apply for ERC funding.
Secondly, nobody is claiming anyone will be deported after a vote to leave. Someone currently working and studying here will be allowed to continue to do so. Deportation would be insane for a start, and these are the type of talented people an independent Britain would seek to attract more of. Universities will be able to hire staff from across the globe, as they currently do. Not being part of a political union certainly has not stopped British academics from going to work almost anywhere.
The same goes for students. Seven out of ten international students came from non-EU countries in 2013. Universities would still be able to admit the best and brightest if we left. Also those taking part in the Erasmus programme, which allows students from across the world to study abroad for a year, would continue as normal. Countries such as Iceland, Norway and Israel are part of the Erasmus scheme, without needing to be members of the EU.
We strongly encourage Universities for Europe, academics and students to look soberly at the facts before writing scare pieces in the national press.
The other thing about leaving the EU which you might not have thought about wrt international incidents, we won't be able to afford to get involved. I'd predict that largely we'd get involved with as little as possible other than anything NATO.
-
These worries aren't scaremongering, they're what I see directly on the ground as someone in a university, I'm afraid to say.
As to your first point, ERC funding grants are only one part of that picture, and I should also point out that what you've quoted applies specifically to the PI and requires the PI to be hosted by a European institution. That is to say, what it would allow for is a Professor or permanent academic fellow, the people already high up the academic food chain, to go to Europe and get a grant to do some work whilst at a European university. So we couldn't actually get that money into UK universities (unless we applied to be an Associated Country, which is possible but costs money and we wouldn't get first dibs on funding pots any more so we'd almost certainly lose the fact that we're currently #1 in creating collaborative research projects in Europe). So what you've referenced describes actually quite a specific situation applying to the higher tier of academics, not a general principle that allows for all other sorts of extra-European collaboration.
The things I worry about are much wider than funding pools - higher travel costs coupled with the extreme funding restraint that's been applied to our sector will make conferences a lot more difficult particularly for PhD or Masters student researchers, who a) do a lot of the coalface work in many academic departments and b) are often surviving on very little money. It would also make it harder for us to shape the direction of European academic funding - even if we bought back into the ERC, we'd be paying in again and we'd lose the seat at the table for determining where research goes (Switzerland is in that position now for example), and compulsory free movement agreements are likely to be attached to any attempt to re-enter such programmes (again, this is currently a problem for Switzerland, who have ended up having their access to schemes severely restricted because of their refusal to implement such agreements; they're currently suspended from the Erasmus programme IIRC).
The community of academics I work and live around isn't big - it's a subsection of a couple of small departments in just one university. I still know talented academics from outside the EU who like it here and would like to work here, but are leaving the UK immediately at the end of their studies because our deportation and visa regime is now so harsh that they won't have time to apply for jobs here between finishing their studies and being forced to leave. We had a Birmingham researcher get arrested by immigration police (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/us-phd-graduate-detained-in-uk-immigration-removal-centre) recently whilst going through the procedures for trying to stay in the UK. Also, if you think it's easy to hire staff from across the globe, it's absolutely not. The migration restrictions on getting researchers in from outside the EU are extremely onerous, I know scientists who've found it extremely difficult to get staff in from outside the EU, especially in non-permanent posts. It's a little easier if people are moving here for a permanent job, but that's just not how a lot of academia operates, we need freedom of movement to be able to function effectively.
I'm not necessarily saying that all that should sway your view, if you believe in national sovereignty at all costs then fine. But I'm afraid to say you're wholly wrong to call these concerns scaremongering, this is an issue right now for non-EU nationals, which after a Leave vote would have the EU nationals - of whom there are huge numbers working in our research sector - added to them. This won't on its own kill off the UK research sector, of course, and the financial issues could be solved with a very large cash injection into academia to counterbalance the losses, but I'm not holding my breath for that happening and it would certainly be less cost-effective than remaining in the system.
-
Surely you can see that the important bit is that becoming an associated country is a simple affair and EU would have no real grounds to deny it. Unless they just want to make an example of a country that leaves their fan club....Wait that makes it sound like it's some kind of evil organisation holding academia, national sovereignty and free European trade to ransom. That's hilarious actually.
However, yeah, wrt the PI, that's for us going over to European unis or labs or whatever. How is that useless? We get to export our academics almost as a commodity. That's great.
The government is going to pay for more things with the money it saves from not being part of the EU. I don't get how you think leaving the EU means cutting everything away that was built collaboratively. It doesn't take away anything already done, it doesn't necessarily mean less funding either. It means we'll be paying for our own armadillo and other people will be paying for theirs.
Also as an aside hardly worth mentioning, if you have a list of European collaborative research it includes a load of those bullarmadillo studies and surveys telling you that red wine and cheese gives you cancer. And that it doesn't. A lot of them are just rubbish exercises in logic or pushing things too far with no need for 'collaboration'.
Travel costs will go down in the long run, and who knows, the govt may subsidise academic travelling with the £13bn they save leaving the EU. Also why paying for ERC membership as a reason to stay is a joke. If you look just at the short term all the time then there's no point, as I've already said, the short term will most likely be rocky. It's the long term and lasting benefits that will make it worthwhile.
RE: Erasmus, Switzerland has like a quarter of its total population as immigrants. They want to limit immigration more than they want their students easier access to foreign unis, that's it. It's ridiculous that EU is making them choose one or the other. I don't know what they're doing in compensation but creating a govt scheme would do the job just as well theoretically. Here we don't have that problem quite yet and even then, negotiating a suitable immigration stance which would keep us part of erasmus can't be beyond us.
Just because someone wants to come here doesn't mean they should or have any right to, what kind of logic is that? And just because we educate someone doesn't mean we have to give them a job here either. It's not even a question of whether someone is more or less capable.
If what you say is true wrt hiring internationally, how does being in or out of the EU change things? It's still up to those peoples respective countries to grant them money to study here, as we pay for our guys and gals to study and collaborate abroad. It isn't up to us to fund every bugger that wants to study or get their first break here. But a history professor I know regularly hires international PhD students. Yes I still think it's just scaremongering and you're blowing things out of proportion or not taking govt action into account.
-
Becoming an associated country is moderately simple for countries like Israel that aren't already heavily invested in the EU research system and are signing up to get on a few collaborative projects. We, on the other hand, host considerably more EU funded projects than our population would imply; being an associated member is possible but the idea that we'd still be able to take such a cost-effective leading role as an associate member is a fantasy and we'd get to make almost no spending decisions as an associate either.
I'm not saying what you posted is useless, I'm just saying that it didn't mean what you claimed it meant, refers to fairly specific situations, and doesn't help with funding UK institutions.
Your "aside" is bullarmadillo, as you'd know if you'd actually looked at the list of research results for EU-funded projects which is available here (http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/result_en?q=/result/relations/categories/resultCategory/code%3D%27brief%27%20AND%20language%3D%27en%27&srt=contentUpdateDate:decreasing), or read the BIS department's 2013 report on our research sector here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263729/bis-13-1297-international-comparative-performance-of-the-UK-research-base-2013.pdf). As for Erasmus and ERC membership, why should the EU bend their rules just because a non-member wants them to? EU citizens benefit from freedom of movement (including ours), so freedom of movement is a demand to participate in EU programmes. You're basically applying massive double standards to say that it's OK for us to demand to be let back into EU projects but not OK for them to place conditions on that; they're not "holding things to ransom" by expecting countries to play by the same rules they do and you can't define "reasonable" as "I'm going to leave but I still expect to be invited to the party all the time when I want to turn up", that's ridiculous.
Basically you're just shooting in the dark wrt finance and costs, there is absolutely no reason to believe that travel costs will decrease long term, nor indeed is there any reason to assume that a government that has exercised very high financial restraint on the research sector would suddenly turn around and give us the money we need to remain competitive, which given the extra costs of setting up international collaborations would be considerable. You're basically banking on the long term unleashing some sort of magical economic independence unicorn, which you have provided basically no evidence for the existence of whatsoever.
That's also really not how research funding works. We fund a hell of a lot of EU and outside-EU researchers to work here, and we do it because we need the best, brightest people to keep a competitive research sector. The calculations on these things aren't just made on the basis of whether grads and researchers bring in money, we need them here to actually do the research and keep our status as one of the world's leading countries on science and innovation. Encouraging highly skilled people to bugger off as soon as possible will just lead to a brain drain out of the UK. Being out of the EU would apply to EU grads the same harsh systems applied to non-EU grads; my own department would probably suffer extremely badly as the specialists we need from S & SE Europe just won't want to come and work here any more if they're not even given the time to stay and apply for funding between research projects.
-
We, on the other hand, host considerably more EU funded projects than our population would imply; being an associated member is possible but the idea that we'd still be able to take such a cost-effective leading role as an associate member is a fantasy and we'd get to make almost no spending decisions as an associate either.
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/07/european-research-funding-horizon-2020 (http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/07/european-research-funding-horizon-2020)
Take a look where it says Switzerland gets some of the highest grant money and host research. And also how it's used more to fund these short-term research projects. Like I was saying.
Your second link is telling us how much research is done by man hours, articles written and funds allocated not the quality of the articles, efficiency of man hours or funds. It says we research more biomedical and social sciences than anything else. Wait, wouldn't biomedical and social sciences be exactly the cancer scare research I was saying? It does however show Canada as having a very similar level of international co-operation as we do (p 60-62). Which is funny because they're not in the EU, the bastion of all scientific research. The only thing supporting that is anecdotes from professors and that's it. The actual data doesn't support it at all. The case studies are interesting but exchange of knowledge is not EU specific again.
As for Erasmus and ERC membership, why should the EU bend their rules just because a non-member wants them to?
It's within 'the rules' but again, you're too het up on rules man. These are more negotiations than hard and fast legality But also they don't have to, these things are agreements not battles or arguments. It'll be worse for UK research in the short term again, but once deals and agreements are negotiated it'll be like nothing happened. Except we'll be richer and in better control of our country.
EU citizens benefit from freedom of movement (including ours), so freedom of movement is a demand to participate in EU programmes. You're basically applying massive double standards to say that it's OK for us to demand to be let back into EU projects but not OK for them to place conditions on that
You've misunderstood, no if they want to be a part of our projects or vice versa and we want that, sure, each give a little and get a little. Don't need to demand anything or threaten or whatever. You can simply ask and be okay with them saying no. You don't need to be in the EU for this to happen, again, Canada has very similar ratio of national and international research to us.
By the by, the first link includes such scientific marvels as 'eroticism in sacred music' and 'communication is key to innovation in food industry'. Truly exceptional work.
Basically you're just shooting in the dark wrt finance and costs, there is absolutely no reason to believe that travel costs will decrease long term, nor indeed is there any reason to assume that a government that has exercised very high financial restraint on the research sector would suddenly turn around and give us the money we need to remain competitive, which given the extra costs of setting up international collaborations would be considerable. You're basically banking on the long term unleashing some sort of magical economic independence unicorn, which you have provided basically no evidence for the existence of whatsoever.
It would be unprecedented so looking for a definitive answer is pointless. There is reason, if you're not seeing it then okay, all right, whatever. We get to tax as we like (currently EU output VAT and the like), we get to pick and choose immigrants which hopefully will decrease unemployment (not guaranteed of course by any stretch). We'll be paying out less to the EU (I doubt we'll get away with paying nothing however) and we'll be able to negotiate trade deals with places like India, Australia, China, UAE which the EU hasn't iirc. Why would the government suddenly give money to research? Because the people doing it before would be pulling funding. That's a pretty compelling reason. That's just what's on the top of my head, there are other reasons, some I won't understand, some I'll question probably I don't know. Saying there is no economic reason to leave the EU is disingenuous though.
Encouraging highly skilled people to bugger off as soon as possible will just lead to a brain drain out of the UK. Being out of the EU would apply to EU grads the same harsh systems applied to non-EU grads; my own department would probably suffer extremely badly as the specialists we need from S & SE Europe just won't want to come and work here any more if they're not even given the time to stay and apply for funding between research projects.
There's no encouragement for them to leave, you're adding unnecessary words. Some people just have to leave and some don't. That's it. I don't know reasoning behind why some internationals (outside EU) can stay and others can't, but it'll be there somewhere. Nobody does something for no reason at all. There is always an intention or purpose. Which segues nicely onto the case in bham. It's ridiculous, that isn't the intention of the law.
-
wouldn't biomedical and social sciences be exactly the cancer scare research I was saying?
"No" is the short answer to that. That would mostly be things like all the projects you ignored whilst cherry-picking two titles out of about the first ten pages of titles that you didn't think looked useful, like the research done into neural networks, new ways of picking up breast cancer symptoms, the extent to which stress and social factors influence heart disease. Also how is the development of new strategies and systems to make it easier for food companies to innovate and sell more cost-effective new products a bad thing or a waste of money?
That Guardian article is from 2013, before Switzerland imposed its migration restrictions. Its ability to access funding has completely tanked since then, with the EU funding received effectively halved - and, more importantly, the number of projects coordinated from Switzerland dropping by over a factor of ten. http://www.startupticker.ch/en/news/january-2016/horizon2020-less-funding-for-swiss-researchers
Whilst you can argue that case on the economy, you're relying on so many imponderables and uncertainties - negotiating hundreds of bilateral trade deals is actually not that simple - that concluding that "we will have more money" and "travel will get cheaper" is basically just assuming that the absolute best outcome is the only likely outcome, which is a bad way to make decisions in general IMO. As for researchers, you just seem to be wilfully not accepting how harsh our system now is on foreign nationals working here, including highly skilled ones. People won't wait and try and find work here if it means risking the embarrassment of getting locked up in a detention centre, they'll probably just decide to do their PhDs elsewhere. If we're not trying to stay competitive in making the country attractive for good people to stay and do research in (and for non-EU folk we're getting increasingly unattractive), they will vote with their feet and the UK will lose out in the sectors it currently leads the rest of the world in.
Anyhow, in more recent news:
- Net immigration remains relatively high and roughly static at 323,000 according to new statistics, around 50% of that being EU migration.
- Lord Owen, formerly a Labour minister and then a founder of the SDP, has backed Brexit
- The government has - a day before the deadline - applied for EU funding to help repair the heavy storm damage in Cumbria and other parts of northern England. (And Cameron forced a Eurosceptic minister to announce it, in an amusing act of political trolling)
-
Who in their right mind thinks that if we remain, our costs of staying won't go up? I was talking to someone yesterday who was convinced that if we stay our relationship with the EU would be the same as it is now. No. We'll be getting portugaled at every opportunity by them.
Also, who the hell asked Obama what he thinks? portugal that guy, he's not got a tiny country who can't do armadillo except pay bills, teach and spy on peeps. His has actual, real power. It's not even the same league to compare it with opening borders with Mexico though. If it was the other foot, that's like saying we should have open borders with Greece or another country that would only be a detriment.
-
Tbh, the Leave campaign are making a key part of their platform that we'll easily be able to rapidly get as good a trade deal with the US and other countries as we would in the EU. I'm not sure Obama put it as nicely as he could, but in that situation where Leave are telling people what the US is going to do, hearing from the US what the US think they're going to do is actually kind of fair enough IMO. You can't base a campaign on "do X, then the rest of the world will do Y" and not expect the rest of the world to have their say on what they think about that.
The idea that the EU is this monolithic block that's out to get us is just wrong, there's no reason to suppose we'll get "portugaled at every opportunity". We've historically been one of the strongest countries in Europe on influencing legislation and pulling it towards our position, we've lost a little influence in recent years because UKIP MEPs never bloody turn up and Cameron is a armadilloty negotiator but the UK government still votes with the majority on the council the vast majority of the time and we with our allies (especially the Danish and Dutch) form a pretty strong voting block in the Council. I just don't understand what this idea that the EU is a single, concentrated entity that's just out to fleece us is based on other than bullarmadillo media reporting. In any case it's much more likely we'd get problems of that sort if we left, because unlike internal negotiations where we can cobble together a majority in support of us, an external negotiation can be blocked by any individual member so then it only takes 1 of 27 to decide they don't like the deal we're proposing instead of 15 of 28. That would mean that getting a free trade deal that didn't permit free movement to Europe would be extremely difficult, because it would only take one of the Eastern European countries to dig their heels in to stop it even if the French and Germans were OK with that.
-
The idea that the EU is out to fleece us is something to do with the £73-350m per week we spend on it. I thought that was one of the more obvious things but nevermind. Nobody has ever said that the EU is one single monolithic entity though, nobody thinks that, nobody writes that. Unless satire or making somesuch commentary.
Why would we suddenly have to pay more? Because we threatened to upset the balance of things. Since forever that's pissed people off. Imagine you're high up in Brussels and you're part of the management of all the countries and what they contribute/get out of it and then suddenly one threatens to leave. That unnamed hypothetical country is coerced back in, you're still not best pleased with it so you just casually up the amount they need to give by 1% and decrease the amount they get back by 20%. That could easily be the sentiment of a lot of higher ups, proper slimy Europhiles that love everything about the EU and have the flag as their bedcovers.
It's not that what the US is going to do that's the problem or what he says they'll do or not do. It's that he's asking UK voters to vote a certain way when really he doesn't have a clue what voters in either camp are voting for. Unless he's been living here in secret for the past years. In which case, my bad, go for it Obama.
Why would UKIP members turn up when their platform is that they don't need the EU? Their entire thing is not playing ball with the EU.
The EU parliament is just more paperwork and busywork and unnecessary laws and people making themselves feel important. It's a giant circlejerk of the type of people you purport to be against, needless businessmen and lawyers and accountants, being overpaid for doing jack armadillo. portugal man, countries are big enough to run, they already have so much administration bullarmadillo there'a already too many bands of power and regulations. All of a sudden, breaking free from all of it seems like the right idea.
Realised I goofed minorly :P
-
There's a difference between "paying a membership fee" and "being fleeced". Like, I pay a lot more to be a member of various things than I get back at least in direct cash, that doesn't make me assume that whoever I'm paying is definitely out to screw me over. And the idea of vengeful "proper slimy Europhile" commissioners forcing our payments up is literally a fantasy, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that would happen or that anyone who'd want it to happen has the power over EU or national mechanisms to do so.
I'm not saying UKIP members should necessarily be expected to turn up, but I am saying that people shouldn't be surprised if they elect people who cba to turn up and then don't get represented properly. And that if the UKIP guys really don't think that the EU is worth turning up to they should actually do it in a principled fashion, get a job, not take their seats at all and not take their salaries (or donate them to charity or whatever). They complain constantly about people "riding the gravy train" then are by far the worst of the lot since unlike even Tory MEPs they don't actually do much work. Certainly we shouldn't blame that on "the EU" rather than on the UKIP MEPs who get elected to do the job of representing their constituents and then don't properly bother doing it.
I guess my feeling is that if we leave Europe we won't end up losing any of the bullarmadillo, we'll just have it happening here in our own equally (indeed probably even more) undemocratic microcosm in Westminster. We'll just end up replicating a bunch of the things that the EU does jointly like trade commissioning. The EU isn't the perfect sort of government I want, but leaving the EU won't solve that, we'll just end up with an expanded system in Whitehall which is still undemocratic, and we'll either lose things like free movement across Europe and ease of academic collaboration, which I like, or we'll take a heavy hit economically, neither of which sound great ideas. Do I want to reform the EU and make it more democratic? Hell yes. If I had a choice between a reformed democratic Westminster and an unreformed EU that I felt was holding it back, would it be a far harder choice? Probably. But I'd actually rather have one armadilloty system to keep the other one in check, in our present situation. Doubly so with Westminster busily hoovering up powers from local authorities at a rate of knots recently. I just think having all the power residing in one place is a really bad idea, I value the benefits of EU membership, and Leave haven't put together any concrete argument IMO as to how or whether we'd keep many of those benefits outside the EU.
-
As I understand it, the EU cannot unilaterally determine our contribution rate. Firstly, any change has to be negotiated with us, otherwise we presumably wouldn't pay. Secondly, as far as I know, the rates of all EU countries' contributions are determined by a mutually agreed formula based on the size of countries' economies. So if our contributions go up, it would be because the EU member states have all agreed that everyone's contributions should go up. I would guess that this is the sort of thing that's still subject to national veto too, so it really is a case that everyone has to agree.
-
And considering we get a rebate of 66% of our net contribution that would sting the other big economies of the EU a hell of a lot more surely?
-
Aye - spending priorities are of course less fixed, though the decisions on which countries money gets spent in there are generally tied to individual projects as opposed to countries as a whole so it's still pretty damned difficult to leverage attacking one member of the bloc.
It is also worth noting that as a % of national income we pay basically less than anyone into the EU, we already have probably unfairly favourable terms of membership.
-
Right there is a difference, I'm not saying whether it is or isn't but to exit voters this is being fleeced.
Dude I explained the reason that they'd put up payments. Lose the double standards, you're got literally exactly the same amount of proof or reason to believe that they won't or for that matter that admin bullarmadillo will go up if we leave EU (by the by, we can't leave Europe, that's geographical). Saying there is no way it will happen is naive.
Right G, so EU asks us to increase payments, we say no and what happens exactly? The EU backs down from a single country and accepts our non-participation.
Aaand @Penty, Not 100% sure what you mean but if you mean we get back 66% of what we pay, currently that's false and if you mean we get instant EU rebate worth 66% of the amount we're liable to pay, that's also false. If it was a general number, cool, fair enough, skip to last line. It changes every year afaik. According to Full Fact Team, in 2015 we were liable to pay £18bn, £5bn of that was rebated instantly so we ended up paying £13bn and £4.5bn that year was spent on the UK. The rebate and what we actually get vs what we pay is still being argued as well, there are so many ways to calculate it and just getting an average of those doesn't really work because they don't measure the same thing half the time. To show at least minimal effort has been put in, here's a BBC thing below which shows us as 2nd largest net contributer of 2007 when we were paying less because I like the graphs.
Depending how you measure it, Germany is basically the only larger economy. So no, not really, no.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start)
-
Dude I explained the reason that they'd put up payments.
Your scenario seems unlikely to me: an organisation has a member that's considering leaving but decides to remain, so the organisation then makes the terms of membership more onerous. I can't help thinking this would have exactly the reverse effect. I'm fairly sure the EU wants us as a member (we are a net contributor, apart from anything else) so they're hardly likely to do something that would encourage us to leave.
Right G, so EU asks us to increase payments, we say no and what happens exactly? The EU backs down from a single country and accepts our non-participation.
Per my previous post, any change to EU contributions requires a negotiation of all the national governments, and, I'm fairly sure, the agreement of all national governments. I don't believe there is any valid scenario in which the EU Commission can unilaterally demand more money from a member government. If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to know why.
Clockwork: I'd be very interested to know what you think the EU is for - why it exists and what it's aiming to do. I think our mental models of it are very different; I'd like to change your mind about it (as you might guess!) but I'd also like to understand what you think of it.
-
I can typing?
-
Sorry, CG (and everyone else outside the UK): I expect this one will continue rumbling away until the referendum on 23 June.
-
Rob the rebate is calculated on the previous year's figures. So in 2015 the rebate we received would have been 66% of the difference between our expenditure and our income from the EU budget of 2014. (Not including the 2014 rebate I think).
For the second reference you gave its worth noting that the figures are from 2007, wherein our rebate had been significantly reduced following negotiations on the EU budget which are held every 7 years, and must be approved by each member state. Blair agreed to the temporary reduction on the rebate, if he hadn't then we wouldn't have had the reduction. The EU cannot change our rebate without our consent.
Every other member state has to pay more into the budget than they would otherwise in order to make up the lost revenue from our rebate. Germany isn't the only other net contributor, and in fact it is among several countries that get a reduction in their payments towards the rebate costs. I'm not sure if this is up to date but apparently France pays more of the cost of our rebate than any other member state.
As to how we could stop changes to the rebate, or any attempt to disproportionately increase our eu payments here is a source what you've already been told, if you'll accept the BBC as reliable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36085281
-
Right so G, assuming the almost certain scenario where we stay we're going to have a lot less pull. If we (as a country) disagree or don't want to do something that the EU has on a general level decided will be a good idea, what can we actually do against it? Previously we could threaten to leave, now we can't do that or lose so much face, we'll practically be Voldemort. We'd be arguing everything with no possible action to bargain with. Sure, it only takes one member state to disagree on something but where does that get us? It's yet more unnecessary bureaucracy. It could be unlikely but isn't covering every angle part of the debate?
The EU is corrupt as all hell, the politicians are corrupt, the commissioners are corrupt, the regulators are more than likely corrupt even when they're reporting on corruption. What is ever done about it? Jack armadillo yet again. Yeah, Britain is probably one of the least corrupt nations but pretty much the entire of eastern europe, spain, greece, northern europe. Even if I wanted to be part of the EU in principle, even if I thought that this glorious Eurostate was the best thing since Trotsky, I'd still want to leave just out of how much of the money given to it simply goes to funding some Greek bastards holiday home in Dubai.
It's a little bit extended but I hope this helps to answer your last question G and obviously I know you know what it is, and I think you give me just enough credit to know what it is but I'll humour you as I expect this is going somewhere.What the EU is meant for, what it stands for, what it was intended to do is fine in theory, if you like that sort of thinking. It's a collaboration of nations primarily banded together for world peace and economic gain but also other join ventures like education and research. In practice, widespread corruption siphons money not into collaborative economic pursuits but selfish ones, countries have become reliant on the hard work of others to keep their currency afloat and so have no incentive to improve themselves and the protection that was promised at it's creation is nowhere to be found as terrorists attack across the continent.
Penty, Right I get you now, I was totally misinterpreting what you were saying. My bad mate, now that I get what you mean, check this out: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44). If you look here it's not quite as simple as: we get 66% back on the net contributions after initial rebates. It's less than that, and we actually pay for a not insignificant amount of our own EU grant directly.
Also if you look here:
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y (http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y)
and the second graph here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/)
It shows that we're paying substantially more per year, given how our currency has fallen against the Euro. And by the by, was there a democratic process that led to the country agreeing to let Blair sign away that money?
Also, there are commissioners that are trying to get that scrapped, and going by what I was saying earlier I reckon this will be time they make some serious headway.
@Jub, you're saying that because we have a higher GNI we should have to pay more per person? That's nonsense mate, things cost way more here than in the countries with lower GNI. If we were paying say, as high a percentage as Hungary, our poverty would be through the roof.
-
Why do you think our only bargaining chip in the EU involves threatening to leave?
And how many example of actual corruption by EU commissioners/central bureaucrats can you give? This seems to be a big part of why you're upset with the EU, and I'm not sure it's justified or at least I can't find much evidence for it.
-
"And by the by, was there a democratic process that led to the country agreeing to let Blair sign away that money?"
The general election that placed his government in power. Arguably a presidential government would be more democratic for matters like this, but I don't think major parliamentary or voting reform in the UK is likely anytime soon.
"Sure, it only takes one member state to disagree on something but where does that get us?" Well it guarantees that EU cannot simply impose new laws or demand an increase in its budget. It guarantees the sovereignty of every member state, and should mean that the budget is agreeable to each member state (provided their representatives are acting for their best interests of course.)
If the EU is so blatantly corrupt the obvious implication is that most of our current government is too. Is that what you believe?
I don't see why an in vote would remove Euroscepticism in the UK or the option to leave, and I also don't see that it would remove Euroscepticism in other member states. This referendum is not the only chance we will have to leave, and a remain vote does not give the EU a mandate to impose harsher terms upon our continued membership.
-
Not our only but it was our strongest one for sure Jub and I'm not talking about isolated instances of fraud, that's the action of a single person. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/corruption/index_en.htm
@Penty Our country is more advanced than the rest of Europe even, we have better national investigation commissions, ours is a country with low levels of corruption.
It might be, you never know what the future is going to bring bud. And whatever, you think everyone will just forget about it or nobody will care or something. I can't for a second understand why but whatever. Countries that want their own referendum will be less encouraged to do so, people that want glorious Eurostate will feel validated. It's going to be disgusting.
-
Clockwork: thanks for responding to my request at such length. I haven't had a chance to read your post in any detail, and I probably won't do until I'm back from my current European travels. Nevertheless, you deserve a proper reply, and I will try to respond to all that you've said. There is probably also a long post coming from me on the subject of the EU.
-
Sorry I keep forgetting to reply to this, but better late than never I guess.
What I meant clockwork is that you seemed to be claiming the EU is corrupt at all levels, and if this is the case I don't see why our government would want to stay in unless they too were corrupt.
What do you mean I think people will forget about it? I'm saying the opposite, people won't just forget that there is significant EU scepticism and downright anti EU sentiment in the UK and elsewhere if we vote to remain.
-
I'm going to refrain from too much angryposting here, but an update on the campaign:
Basically the polls seem to be tied, but there's a big gap between online and phone polling - online polls push towards leave, phone polls towards remain. It's hard to tell what this means; traditionally phone polls have been marginally more accurate, but it may show that there's a "quiet Brexit" group who will be less likely to admit it when asked but will push a button for it in the more anonymous online setting. The biggest question is really how wavering voters will go, as (particularly with the polls so close) the wavering voters greatly outnumber the margins of victory in most polls; the usual thing in referenda is that waverers tend to break towards the status quo when they get into the polling booth (see for example the No vote in the Scotland referendum), but of course it's hard to say whether that'll happen here.
We also have a Cameron VS Farage ITV debate coming up, which reportedly Vote Leave are mad about as they're worried Farage will screw up their campaign (though apparently they'd have preferred to put Gove up against the PM, and I suspect that Farage will do better than Gove would on account of, well, not being Michael Gove).
I guess my expectation, to stick my neck out and make a prediction is that it will be pretty narrow, I don't think either side will get above 55% of non-abstainers and I'd be surprised if the winner got a better result than about 48-52 in their favour. If I was asked to put absolute numbers, I think that Cameron's frankly armadilloty tactics will just about sneak him over the line 51-49 in favour of staying. That said, if either side does really run away with it unexpectedly, it'll be Leave I think. It's hard for the status-quo campaign (and whilst Remain didn't have to position itself as a purely status-quo campaign, it did and that's where we are) to produce surges in referenda in the way that Leave could if a suitable news event happens.
-
Ah I get what you were saying penty. Nah, you can benefit from corruption without actively engaging in it yourself.
Who cares if there's EU skepticism if we remain? If we remain the EU won't need any incentive to try and keep us. I mean, we literally couldn't have another referendum, we'll be stuck there.
Anyone else think the stay campaign has been ridiculously intrusive? Every other youtube vid has a bloody stay or 'how the eu has helped britain' advert besides the fact that none of the things they say are backed up by anything and that it uses misleading statistics - portugal off, get out of my face. If I wanted that content; I'd look for it. Facebook has had asshats on both sides and discussion on both sides and I've seen more than a few people switch sides during the last month or so.
Cameron vs Farage... Reckon Farage will have a tougher time winning this one, last time those two had a tv debate Cameron severely underestimated Farage. Don't think he'll do that again.
My expectation as I may have mentioned is that Stay is going to win by a significant amount. I don't think it'll be that close and I reckon the polls are only used to fuel media hype.
-
...you may want to turn off following me on FB for the next month if you haven't already, mate :P
It's not true that we literally couldn't have another referendum. I mean we probably won't, but if the EU was seen to be worsening any part of our membership terms post-referendum then that would be the excuse the Tory right needed to launch a coup and take out Cameron and Osborne. And given that most of the press is heavily anti-EU, a defeat for Leave coupled with worsened terms could really boost Eurosceptics like UKIP at future elections.
Honestly I thought Farage was crap in the election TV debates, but then he was just pumping out a pretty singular message about immigration that I personally think is bollocks. He needs to avoid insulting the audience this time though, that didn't look good. I will stay that Farage performed well against Clegg in their previous EU debate though; the risk for Remain is that Cameron gets backed into a corner of making "high economics" arguments that don't resonate with people, whereas Farage zeroes in better on how he claims Leaving will help people's individual families. That was/is a problem that Clegg had really badly (which is to be expected, the man's a former EU trade commissioner, his head's just not in the right place to connect closely with people's concerns over Europe). The worry for Leave is I think that Farage goes overboard on immigration and tinfoil-hat comments about how everything's rigged against him, whilst Cameron presents himself as a reasonable moderate. I doubt the debate will shift many votes though; I think they'll be quite evenly matched, Cameron isn't quick enough on his feet to really wipe the floor with Farage, whilst Farage mostly appeals to people who are already going to vote to leave anyway.
Personally I'd like to see people like Alan Johnson and Tim Farron doing more talking for Remain, I think they both come over as slightly more normal than Cameron and Osborne. Remain does rather lack a Boris-like larger than life personality which I think may be a weakness, though Boris hasn't done himself many favours in the Leave campaign as it's too obvious he's just there for career purposes.
-
You know already that even if I disagree with you I still respect what you're saying. Even if I don't understand it and it takes me 5 or 6 forum posts to get it I'm still thinking you know what you're talking about and I'm just being dumb. You're mainly the discussion I'm talking about rather than the asshats. Applies to everyone here btw, even if my post sounds accusatory as I re-read them, it's not meant to I'm usually just trying to get you to explain something without using the words 'I have no idea what that means'.
It's not true that we literally couldn't have another referendum
Yeah, okay English is a bitch, but you know what I mean, we can't without losing so much face that it wouldn't be worth it.
The Tories don't wholly want to leave afaik, they have a fair few europhiles among them.
As an aside but slightly relevant, Boris is a really, really smart guy and I think it's way too easy to forget that he doesn't want or try to act as a politician all the time. Yeah he's possibly sneaky as portugal and maybe his moves are calculated as much as him wanting to do something because he feels it's right, but I'm (possibly naively, I'll admit) the half which believes that actually, he knows even more than he lets on, he's more connected than he lets on and actually wants a better Britain.
I think you're right on about the debate though.
-
Polls make this easier to understand.
-
armadillo guys, TV has just made me aware of a sudden realisation.
If we leave we'll never win Eurovision again we'll never win Eurovision. Vote stay is the only option now.
-
Re the poll: nobody is safely outside the European world of influence. We Europeans get literally bloody everywhere. :P
Colossus: aye, likewise I do find it really interesting and useful to be able to debate with you, more an advance warning as I'm imagining my FB will get quite in-your-face pro-EU in the next bit!
Anyway, onto the substance - the issue for the Tories is that the parliamentary party are far, far more Europhile than the membership. Hardly any constituency parties have actually backed Remain. So basically the parliamentary party are likely to back Cameron, but if Cameron falls, and particularly if he falls with the party feeling bruised about the EU, the rank and file members will be very, very likely to go for a Eurosceptic.
As for Boris: I don't think he'd necessarily back Leave if he thought it would totally collapse Britain, but also he's basically only converted to Leave in the last few months, he's said a lot of very pro-Remain things previously to that and there's nothing obvious that's changed except that his leadership ambitions have potentially received a boost as he's now obviously the leader of the party's Brexit faction. I suspect he doesn't care, and maybe doesn't think it matters much, whether we're in or out. Anyhow, today he went full Godwin's Law and decided to claim that the EU, Hitler, and Napoleon all basically had the same objective of centralising Europe and re-creating the Roman Empire. Whilst his comments have been a bit overhyped even in the original they were frankly pretty armadilloty campaigning and showed a terrifyingly poor grasp of history (or, given that I'm sure Boris knows his history, a worrying willingness to screw around with inconvenient things like facts). I think it was a misstep in any case, I don't think any of the stuff going on at the moment is going to boost or dent Leave or Remain's polling figures much.
-
I ran across this analysis of the Vote Leave case for Brexit (http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/vote-leave-take-control-shambles.html). It's from "Another Angry Voice", a left-wing blog that those following me on Facebook will probably already be familiar with - right-wing readers might find the language a touch abrasive. Nevertheless, I think it's worth reading.
Meanwhile, I hadn't spotted the poll on this thread until now; I have voted. I agree with Jubal: a lot of the world is too highly connected these days for many people to be unaffected by the outcome of the referendum. For example, if you have friends who are non-British Europeans living in the UK (or, vice versa, Brits living elsewhere in the EU), you have quite an interest in the outcome.
-
The poll choices aren't to be taken that seriously guys. :P
-
Point taken, CG. Alas I, and a lot of others, are likely to take anything about the referendum quite seriously for some time to come.
-
Also, you're aware that posting anything in a thread with Glaurung and I involved is pretty much asking for it to be overanalysed until it bleeds. :P
Meanwhile, in the last few days there've been some pretty strong polls for Remain, including one with a double-digit lead. Turnout factors still seem to favour Leave though, with the Out camp being very much more fired up. Boris, meanwhile, is playing the "establishment stitch-up" card heavily (which is probably one of Leave's more effective ones now to keep turnout up, though it annoys me intensely), which is leading to more tension with the Prime Minister (and a rebuke from previous Tory leadership candidate Michael Heseltine).
-
imo I think leaving just generally seems like a better idea. since Greece's economy happened I've always had it in my mind that Europe is a ship that's sinking fast.
-
Oh for portugal's sake. Now you've done it BK!
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2vabli1.png)
-
please don't whip me!
-
Y'all just clearly want the UK to fail so I have to move to the US or Australia :P
Anyway, I've done my last leaflets and cast my vote for Remain. Now we wait and see!
-
I don't know if I can be bothered to find my polling station. Still not entirely sure which way I would vote, probably remain but maybe I'll just flip a coin.
-
I had a thought. Why not have the rest of the EU decide if they even want you in it anymore. They must be feeling like you're conceited jerks for even putting this up for a vote. :P
-
Yeah we're doubly portugaled now. We can't renegotiate our terms, rest of Europe hates us and we're staying in the EU.
-
woo, sounds fun.
-
Well turns out I was wrong. The referendum shows that more people want out than in.
A victory for the righteous, the salty tears of remain camp are flowing freely.
-
Haven't checked Facebook yet, how bad is the ranting?
-
A lot of people are complaining. But I guess even more are just not saying anything so....democracy I guess
But yeah, over reactions are through the roof. This is the apocalypse btw in case there was any doubt.
EDIT: And here are the results in full I guess http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
-
I imagine it'll just get put to a vote again before any leaving actually happens and it'll get reversed.
-
Victory for the righteous? I was with you through "victory for the right" then got lost, hah.
And no, this won't be reversed. We're about to go into some of most uncertain and ill prepared for political times we've had in decades, and may be about to find out just how little of a plan anyone put in place for leaving. I mean, fingers crossed that all the Leave predictions come true now and the country isn't as poor and generally portugaled as I fear, but I still think they've worked themselves into a politically impossible situation.
We also now have the "what sort of deal" arguments - do we go EU lite like Norway or more heavily break away and more radically had painfully rebalance the economy to compensate. There are whole new areas of policy that we don't even have civil servants trained in covering any more and where previous consensus may be shattered. I think now Cameron is gone, a fresh GE may be likely to settle the question of who does the negotiations (probably the Tories still, but their majority is fragile).
Basically as Clockwork said this is a really really big deal, and it settles actually not very much given how unclear many people on either side were another what their respective options meant. Impossible to say how things will develop now, beyond a lot of confusion (which the markets won't like admittedly).
Anyway... on a personal level, I and a lot of people I work with are likely to get really heavily negatively impacted by this, so I really hope it does bring the benefits to those who voted for Leave that they wanted to make that worth it. As I've said elsewhere, and as is painfully obvious from Farage's victory speech, a lot of the Leave camp pushed this into being a referendum on "what counts as British"; I feel alienated and angry at the result, whether Leave voters saw it this way I can't say but in practice it is an attack on my identity and on people I love that was in some significant part won by dog-whistle racism and outright lies. Whether you want to call that overreaction or not, it's the harsh truth that's been staring out from every Leave leaflet I've seen in this campaign; they won fair and square by making these islands more divided, and that's the future we all now have to live with.
-
So will Scotland leave the UK now and rejoin EU?
-
If they are allowed another referendum then quite probably.
Edit
Also look on the bright side joobs, the possibilities of brexit banter are endless. We could even be living in a world where Boris Johnson and the unstumpable Trump are global leaders. All aboard the banter bus.
#hashtag amusing hair
-
Yeah, I think a Scots referendum is now quite likely.
The biggest question is really "what does Brexit mean in practice", especially given that the Vote Leave camp are rapidly rowing back on a lot of stuff they said during the campaign. I think this means we'll get a better deal on trade and movement rights than I'd perhaps feared, but the result of that may be a lot of very angry Leave voters when they realise that leaving the EU won't actually do jack s*it to reduce immigration or curb free movement and might still require us to accept some EU rules with less democratic say in them than we had before.
-
I just hope we get a general election before negotiations get too heavy, the thought of Michael Gove having such a prominent role in our future is a pretty disgusting one.
-
It seems likely. Boris is already pedalling rapidly towards a very minimal Brexit position, it seems far more likely that free movement and trade will be maintained (which may ironically include accepting big swathes of EU law with no say in it, so we might actually finally get to be governed by bureaucrats with no mandate which is fun).
Labour and Tories both ripping themselves to shreds, in any case. We're in deep political crisis, and only UKIP and the Lib Dems seem to have terribly clear positions on this.
-
The leave campaign is being demonised ao much it's becoming comical. Who thought that if leave won that farage would be in any place to enforce policy? :P
Nobody in their right mind believes that leave would bring instant economic benefits and apparently the remain thinks that what is happening now is a huge surprise. Lmao, been reading my facebook feed and it's ridiculous. XD
-
My friend's ex was really pissed off with her nan for voting leave (she's one of these cretins that thinks older people don't have a future so shouldn't be voting or some armadillo like that) and wrote a massive rant to her nan about why she shouldn't have voted no. Her nans reply was
"Just proud to be British". portugal I love old people.
But it's sounding like we might just be ending up in the eea with no legislative powers, which is what pretty much nobody voted for (or at least I'd hope not.) I guess only time will tell though.
-
I think the thing is, it's quite possible that if there'd been a specific leave deal on the ballot paper that there's no one deal that would have beaten remain, which makes it really difficult now - all the Leavers seem to want different things. Some of them are still claiming they can do some kind of impossible super-deal, but the EU are making it quite clear that we're not going to get a better deal than member states get. Being in the EEA with no legislative powers sucks, but I think it's probably our best worst option at this stage, a more full economic crash-out would be really, really painful for us as a country.
And yeah, the "old people shouldn't vote" is nonsense, though I do wish young people had turned out better and there's definitely been a lot of "young people don't know what they're talking about" crap being thrown which is equally bad.
-
I think you guys just secretly want to join the US.
-
I'd join the USA if all your presidential candidates weren't so horrible.
-
I mean, Britain joining could rectify that of course. Certainly no GOP candidate would ever be elected again without an utterly massive swing to the left. England alone (which might I guess end up divided into states by region) is vastly bigger than even California, and about as solidly to the left on social and economic issues; there aren't that many of our Conservatives who oppose things like the NHS and marriage equality. Also we could run Boris for the presidency, which would be hilarious and, as much as I increasingly loathe the man, could still potentially be the best option on the ballot paper.
Not sure whether we'd just join as England, or as some regional collection like Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Wessex, Kent, London, Cornwall (the latter would bring us closer to a collection of US states in population terms; Mercia would be a fairly sizeable state in population terms, Cornwall would be the new baby, being about the same population as Wyoming). Would make a lot of difference to the Senate which one we did.
-
Though of course the voters who wanted to "take back control" and close our borders would might not be too keen on submitting the UK Parliament to the US federal system, or allowing free movement for 250 million US citizens...
-
Being the next American state would be hella better than staying in the EU. Become American citizen, fewer disputes on when to use the letter 'u', people from Norfolk might become hillbillies and we'd have sent a man to the moon! 'Murica!
-
Surely more disputes on when to use the letter u? We'd have to argue with the (other) Americans about which spellings to use on official documentation! At least the +man on the moon would be an OK trade off for the loss of our joint nobel prize on leaving the EU...
I also want it on record that Norfolk people are peasants not hillbillies, on account of having been that way a lot longer and having precisely bugger all in the way of hills. :P
-
We're marshbillies.
-
I think if we joined the states we'd have to accept their spelling, as wrong as it is. :P
A new subtype of hillbilles! Your guys up for that cg? XD
Edit' we'd have to learn to apologise less, shout more, use the horn when driving, mutual contempt of Canada. The queen would get a wing of the white house. The tea would be dredged from the harbour. So much positivity, sounds better the more I think about it in loose, improbable terms!
-
Maybe we could somehow amalgamate the new US and the old EU to have one giant United States of Everywhere.
-
It would be the states of England, Scotland, and Wales. NI is out unless Ireland reunifies. The Queen is gone. You know we don't do that monarchy armadillo. :P
-
I'm not to fussed about the monarchy either, it's cool. What would NI count as then? It's not as if it's too small, like 12 or 13 actual states have fewer people.
Also England would have around 106 electoral votes. :P
-
NI is just left by itself. If it wants to be a state then it's all Ireland or nothing. Also we will grant you 1 electoral vote because you burned our capital. >:(
-
No taxation without (adequate) representation! :P
-
Go ahead, throw your tea in the Channel. We know you won't do it so we're not afraid. :P
-
This is the other way round, so we'll be throwing your iced tea in the channel. And your cheeseburgers.
-
Uhhh yeah, we'll talk after you come and take them. :)
-
Uhm, we already import them - which was, if you recall, how you got your hands on a load of tea in Boston. :P
Though admittedly we might be screwed for imports now the value of the pound has crashed.
-
now you'll need to bring tea in by the kilogram instead
-
Reposting from Boris Johnson's facebook:
"On Friday I heard a new dawn chorus outside my house. There was a rustling and twittering, as though of starlings assembling on a branch. Then I heard a collective clearing of the throat, and they started yodelling my name – followed by various expletives. “Oi Boris – c---!” they shouted. Or “Boris – w-----!” I looked out to see some otherwise charming-looking young people, the sort who might fast to raise money for a Third World leprosy project.
They had the air of idealists – Corbynistas; Lefties; people who might go on a march to stop a war. And so when they started on their protest song, I found myself a bit taken aback. “EU – we love YOU! EU – we love YOU!” they began to croon. Curious, I thought. What exactly is it about the EU that attracts the fervent admiration of north London radicals? It was the first time I had ever heard of trendy socialists demonstrating in favour of an unelected supranational bureaucracy.
In the old days, the Lefties used to dismiss the EU as a bankers’ ramp. Tony Benn thought it was unacceptably anti-democratic. Jeremy Corbyn used to vote against it in every division. Why has it suddenly become so fashionable among our nose-ringed friends? I tried to think which of the EU’s signature policies they were so keen on. Surely not the agricultural subsidies that make up most of the budget, and that have done so much to retard development in the Third World. They can’t – for heaven’s sake – support the peak tariffs that discriminate against value added goods from Sub-Saharan Africa. Nor can they possibly enjoy the sheer opacity of the system – the fact that there are 10,000 officials who are paid more than the Prime Minister, and whose names and functions we don’t know.
They can’t really be defending the waste, the fraud – or the endless expensive caravan of crémant-swilling members of the European Parliament between Brussels and Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Are they really demonstrating in favour of the torrent of red tape that has done so much to hold back growth in the EU? It seems an odd sort of campaign theme: what do we want? More Brussels law-making! When do we want it? Now!
Naturally, Lefties might want laws to protect the workforce – but they would surely want those laws to be made by politicians that the people could remove at elections. No: the more I thought about it, the odder it seemed. It was incredible that these young and idealistic people should be making a rumpus about the euro – the key policy of the modern EU – when that project has so gravely intensified suffering in many southern EU countries, and deprived a generation of young people of employment.
Perhaps, I mused, it was a general feeling that the EU was about openness, tolerance and diversity. But they must surely know that the EU’s rules on free movement mean a highly discriminatory regime, one that makes it much more difficult for people from outside the EU to get into Britain – even though we need their skills.
So what was it about? People’s emotions matter, even when they do not seem to be wholly rational. The feelings being manifested outside my house are shared by the large numbers of people – 30,000, they say – who at the weekend came together in Trafalgar Square to hear pro-EU speeches by Sir Bob Geldof. There is, among a section of the population, a kind of hysteria, a contagious mourning of the kind that I remember in 1997 after the death of the Princess of Wales. It is not about the EU, of course; or not solely. A great many of these protesters – like dear old Geldof – are in a state of some confusion about the EU and what it does.
It is not, as he says, a “free trade area”; if only it were. It is a vast and convoluted exercise in trying to create a federal union – a new political construction based in Brussels. But, as I say, I don’t believe that it is psychologically credible to imagine young people chanting hysterically in favour of Brussels bureaucrats. The whole protest is not about the EU project, per se; it is about them – their own fears and anxieties that are now being projected on to Brexit.
These fears are wildly overdone. The reality is that the stock market has not plunged, as some said it would – far from it. The FTSE is higher than when the vote took place. There has been no emergency budget, and nor will there be. But the crowds of young people are experiencing the last psychological tremors of Project Fear – perhaps the most thoroughgoing government attempt to manipulate public opinion since the run-up to the Iraq War.
When Geldof tells them that the older generation has “stolen your future” by voting to Leave the EU, I am afraid there are too many who still believe it. It is time for this nonsense to end. It was wrong of the Government to offer the public a binary choice on the EU without being willing – in the event that people voted Leave – to explain how this can be made to work in the interests of the UK and Europe. We cannot wait until mid-September, and a new PM. We need a clear statement, now, of some basic truths:
1. There is no risk whatever to the status of the EU nationals now resident and welcome in the UK, and indeed immigration will continue – but in a way that is controlled, thereby neutralising the extremists.
2. It is overwhelmingly in the economic interests of the other EU countries to do a free-trade deal, with zero tariffs and quotas, while we extricate ourselves from the EU law-making system.
3. We can do free-trade deals with economies round the world, many of which are already applying.
4. We can supply leadership in Europe on security and other matters, but at an intergovernmental level.
5. The future is very bright indeed. That’s what Geldof should be chanting."
It's not just me that thinks this after all I guess.
-
I think it's incredibly rich of Boris to win and then be all "well, what do you mean the Prime Minister didn't have a plan? Why do you expect me to have a plan?" You also know that I think his attacks on the EU's "unelected bureaucracy" kind of ignore most of the truth about how the EU works, which tbh is a large part of how we got here to start with.
I agree with Boris on a very few points here. Firstly, the government must clarify that EU nationals here are not at risk of deportation. They have thus far entirely failed to do so, so for that reason alone he shouldn't be surprised if people are upset and protesting until everyone in government has fully clarified that their lives and homes are not up for these negotiations. I think he's wrong that controls on European immigration will quieten the extremists though, especially when they realise that there will be minimal meaningful difference to numbers. Net migration is more non-EU than it is EU migrants - and Boris seems to be suggesting we should relax quotas there - and of the EU migrants a decent percentage will still get in under a points system. A very, very generous estimate might be that losing free movement could let us cut migration by 15% or so? Maybe a fifth tops? I don't think that's going to satisfy people who seem to want it down into the tens of thousands.
I also agree that we can do a free trade deal with no tariffs or quotas; that's just - as everyone damn well knows but keeps obfuscating - not remotely the same as full single market access (which also includes financial passporting and contract bidding rights as major parts of it). We won't get full single market access without free movement; the EU want to sell us goods and will happily lower barriers to do that, but they have no obligation to give us access to their service markets if we won't play by the same rules as everyone else. I think that's likely to cause a fair amount of economic pain as our finance and services industries either undergo serious shrinkage (or we lose a lot of money to the treasury if we keep them here by massively slashing corporation tax, and even that may not work). It's pain that we could work through and come out stronger from with clever strategic investments by government to grow other sectors like high-tech manufacturing and science, we have been reliant on those service industries for too long financially, but I'm not holding my breath for the right strategy. I think he's too blase about trade deals too - we can do them, but it will take significant time and manpower that we currently literally don't have.
There are also a lot of things at stake that Boris doesn't mention, which we've gone over in the past - whether national governments will have the strategic nous to allocate future spending to the areas the EU was good at funding, what the future is of most of our international academic collaborations, and how we stop a lot of ongoing projects having the rug pulled from under them. We're also going to have a huge amount of legal revision to do, a large part of which will ironically probably end up being done by unelected bureaucrats here because there is no feasible way of parliament dealing with that quantity of legislation.
I think we can work out an alright path for the country, though for me that ideally means keeping free movement & trade - I still think we'd be better off in the EU, and I'm glad that I'll have the option to vote for parties that want us to return in future general elections.