General / Off-Topic EU Referendum (UK only) - to Brexit or not to Brexit
- Thread starter Caspar
- Start date
- Status
And on an entirely different topic:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/International/Europe/Benefits-EU-Membership
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/International/Europe/Benefits-EU-Membership
Last edited:
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
My wife and I are voting different ways in the referendum.
If one half of the house ends up in Europe, and the other half out, I'm concerned I may have to set up some sort of checkpoint in the hallway.
Actually ... just thought, I could refuse to issue visas to the kids and play Elite in peace.
Here you go, some blueprints:
[video=youtube;p8a40OZtH0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8a40OZtH0M[/video]
Hah! Skipped through to the bit with the wall - the bit with the kettle was actually pretty funny!
That said, I'm not sure that the plywood wall will be really necessary (or within the scope of my DIY skills), a six foot buffer zone littered with Lego brick anti-personnel carpet-mines will be enough.
That said, I'm not sure that the plywood wall will be really necessary (or within the scope of my DIY skills), a six foot buffer zone littered with Lego brick anti-personnel carpet-mines will be enough.
I voted remain on this poll, but my mind may change. On one hand i despise that leaving would allow the tories to destroy workers rights and human rights, on the other hand i know full well that our services are being destroyed by massive eastern european immigration, but even leaving the EU won't save our culture from the pandering to a certain religion (whose adherents are British citizens). Either way the left of labour will ignore both problems, and our secular society faces the double ended dilemma that will transcend even the EU membership issue, the left will surrender our liberty to foreign cultures, or the racist right wingers will turn our country into a fascist one. The choice goes like this......leave the EU and risk right wing domination for decades but preserve our culture. Or remain, and allow the left to pander to multicultural interests, thus destroying our country in the long run but preserving our own morality. Ofcourse there are other arguments, but my post was about the long term issues to ponder, you might think i'm fear mongering or over pessimistic (i might be over pessimistic) but i'm not the one claiming Brexit would lead to WW3 or remain would facilitate Hitlers dream. Note: i'm a labour voter, and there are many on the left not happy with the EU, or Corbyn for that matter, i for one count myself in the Anti Corbyn camp (But. i'm not necessarily Anti EU) despite being the democratic socialist that i consider myself to be.
Last edited:
The China does not recommend the Brexit
Repost of an earlier post for newcomers
Some useful info I've found digging around. Now some may cry "it's biased" but I've tried to go for primary sources not news articles or opinion pieces. That often means the organisations involved.
For full disclosure I am "Remain" but I also like to hunt out the facts. Hopefully this will help dispel some myths around the debate and allow people to make up their own mind based on facts rather than myths. That's also why I have tried to stay away from opinions like "migration is good/bad" etc.
I hope this helps, if I've made any errors drop me a PM or post and I'll update.
On TTIP
On the undemocratic nature of the EU Commission, "unelected Eurocrats"
On the UK not being able to influence the EU
A personal bug bear, the £350million pounds a week to Brussels claim
Turkey will join the EU and 75million Muslims will be free to settle in the UK.
Some useful info I've found digging around. Now some may cry "it's biased" but I've tried to go for primary sources not news articles or opinion pieces. That often means the organisations involved.
For full disclosure I am "Remain" but I also like to hunt out the facts. Hopefully this will help dispel some myths around the debate and allow people to make up their own mind based on facts rather than myths. That's also why I have tried to stay away from opinions like "migration is good/bad" etc.
I hope this helps, if I've made any errors drop me a PM or post and I'll update.
On TTIP
Far from being a secret deal, it appears to have a web site. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/ on it you can find all sorts of useful info such as
There are some useful bits on ISDS, one of the main complaints about TTIP, the bit about allowing companies to sue governments if they don't open up public services or introduce laws that might harm profits. It's often used in the context of the privatisation of the NHS. Anyway that fear appears to be based on early drafts of the TTIP. The EU has proposed a new system and there is a draft text. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153955.pdf
Here are the first two paragraphs.
"1. The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of the Parties to regulate within their territories through measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity.
2. For greater certainty, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted as a commitment from a Party that it will not change the legal and regulatory framework, including in a manner that may negatively affect the operation of covered investments or the investor’s expectations of profits"
There is also a joint statement by the US and EU here http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153264.pdf
As a counterpoint, and for completeness, Greenpeace have released some more documentation here http://www.ttip-leaks.org/. I have to say I'm not 100% convinced by their arguments. They seem dismissive of the improved dispute system saying it offers no cover against private companies using it as leverage to erode environmental regulations. I'm not sure as the paragraphs above, and others throughout the text seem to make it explicit that the system is not to be used for that purpose. bear in mind Greenpeace are very anti TTIP and it is unlikely they would be satisfied with it in any form.
- negotiating positions
- draft texts
- reports on negotiation rounds
- fact sheets
- summaries
There are some useful bits on ISDS, one of the main complaints about TTIP, the bit about allowing companies to sue governments if they don't open up public services or introduce laws that might harm profits. It's often used in the context of the privatisation of the NHS. Anyway that fear appears to be based on early drafts of the TTIP. The EU has proposed a new system and there is a draft text. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153955.pdf
Here are the first two paragraphs.
"1. The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of the Parties to regulate within their territories through measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity.
2. For greater certainty, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted as a commitment from a Party that it will not change the legal and regulatory framework, including in a manner that may negatively affect the operation of covered investments or the investor’s expectations of profits"
There is also a joint statement by the US and EU here http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153264.pdf
As a counterpoint, and for completeness, Greenpeace have released some more documentation here http://www.ttip-leaks.org/. I have to say I'm not 100% convinced by their arguments. They seem dismissive of the improved dispute system saying it offers no cover against private companies using it as leverage to erode environmental regulations. I'm not sure as the paragraphs above, and others throughout the text seem to make it explicit that the system is not to be used for that purpose. bear in mind Greenpeace are very anti TTIP and it is unlikely they would be satisfied with it in any form.
One of the charges levelled at the EU is that the laws it makes (and states have to follow) are made by unelected officials with no democratic input.
First the EU commission is essentially the civil service. There are thousands of people working for them, but the top bods are the 28 commissioners, one from each state. These people are selected by the 28 governments (one each) then the whole lot are put forward to be approved or rejected by the EU parliament. The parliament can also call a no confidence vote forcing them to resign. This process happens every 5 years.
The next charge is that the EU commission (EUC) makes the laws. It is true that it is the body that proposes and writes new laws.
First the writing of the laws, this is similar in function to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in the UK who are a bunch of unelected lawyers who actually write the laws, because you wouldn't let MP's do it would you!
The proposal side, which is normally done by the government or private members bill in the UK. The EUC takes direction from the council (the 28 governments), the EU parliament (elected representatives) or by direct pertition by citizens via the citizens initiative also the central bank and a few others
The laws proposed by the above and written by the Commission are then batted back and forth between the council and parliament.
There's a good visual explanation here, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers
The point is that the EU parliament must approve every law.
there are a few exceptions where the council and EUC can make laws or even just the EUC alone, but they are very limited and not used much. For example only 2 laws have been made by the commission only route.
First the EU commission is essentially the civil service. There are thousands of people working for them, but the top bods are the 28 commissioners, one from each state. These people are selected by the 28 governments (one each) then the whole lot are put forward to be approved or rejected by the EU parliament. The parliament can also call a no confidence vote forcing them to resign. This process happens every 5 years.
The next charge is that the EU commission (EUC) makes the laws. It is true that it is the body that proposes and writes new laws.
First the writing of the laws, this is similar in function to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in the UK who are a bunch of unelected lawyers who actually write the laws, because you wouldn't let MP's do it would you!
The proposal side, which is normally done by the government or private members bill in the UK. The EUC takes direction from the council (the 28 governments), the EU parliament (elected representatives) or by direct pertition by citizens via the citizens initiative also the central bank and a few others
The laws proposed by the above and written by the Commission are then batted back and forth between the council and parliament.
There's a good visual explanation here, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-powers
The point is that the EU parliament must approve every law.
there are a few exceptions where the council and EUC can make laws or even just the EUC alone, but they are very limited and not used much. For example only 2 laws have been made by the commission only route.
The UK has one seat out of 28 on the council and vetoes on several areas. However, it is not a simple 1 country 1 vote system. Each country has a block of votes related to their population. The UK has 29 votes, the same as Germany, France and Italy.
In order for a proposal to be passed
This means that if the UK were to vote against a proposal, it would provide nearly 1/3 the votes required to block it. Alternatively, the UK provides 10% of the votes required to approve a proposal.
Whichever way you look at it the UK is one of the "big beasts" in the EU council.
There's a good summary on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union )
In addition several policy areas require unanimous vote (effectively adding an extra veto)
Out of 751 MEPs the UK has 72, the same number as France and Italy and second only to Germany (96).
Of course in recent years UKIP have made up 20 or so of our MEPs and they regularly abstain or don't turn up.
In order for a proposal to be passed
- At least 15 (or 18, if proposal was not made by the Commission) countries,
- At least 260 of the total 352 voting weights,
- At least 313.6 mil. people represented by the states that vote in favour.
This means that if the UK were to vote against a proposal, it would provide nearly 1/3 the votes required to block it. Alternatively, the UK provides 10% of the votes required to approve a proposal.
Whichever way you look at it the UK is one of the "big beasts" in the EU council.
There's a good summary on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union )
In addition several policy areas require unanimous vote (effectively adding an extra veto)
Out of 751 MEPs the UK has 72, the same number as France and Italy and second only to Germany (96).
Of course in recent years UKIP have made up 20 or so of our MEPs and they regularly abstain or don't turn up.
rather than point to lots of publications, I will point you to the Treasury report on the EU budget, which contains the figures for the UK contribution. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...83344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf
Each EU member pays a contribution to the budget. The way it's worked out is complex but based on GDP, population, tax take etc. if you've ever filled in a self assessment tax form you'll get the picture. This generates a figure for each year to be paid.
There is a table showing the UK contributions (p17). The figure that the UK would have to pay is the top line which would equate to about £350 million a week.
However, the UK has a rebate. Again the calculation is complex but the important thing to understand is that the rebate is applied before any money is sent to the EU. Rebate sounds like you pay money then get some back (like "cash back" on a purchase), which is probably where the misconception comes from. A better name would be discount. So the UK does not pay the top line figure to the EU, it would if we didn't have the rebate/discount, we only pay the top figure less the rebate (second line). The proof of this is buried in the annex here (p33).
Note the bit about no money changing hands.
So the honest answer to how much we send to the EU every week is closer to £250 million a week. If someone asked "what did you pay for that coat?" when you just bought a coat that was £350 full price but used a discount card to get £100 off, "£350" would not be an accurate answer even though the coat would have cost £350. The honest answer would be "£250".
Of course what the UK pays is not the same as what it would save if it left as the EU pays some money back. This is the third line and equates to £175 million a week.
Of course all of the above numbers are big, but they need to be compared to the UK government overall spend. After all a £350 coat may be a lot for you or me but to Mark Zuckerberg or a Russian oligarch, it's pocket change.
The UK Government spends (in round numbers), £14,000 million a week. In that context even the £350 million a week figure is only 2.5% and the £175million we would save is just over 1%.
To put other things in context, the UK spends about:
(see http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2015UKbn for figures)
Each EU member pays a contribution to the budget. The way it's worked out is complex but based on GDP, population, tax take etc. if you've ever filled in a self assessment tax form you'll get the picture. This generates a figure for each year to be paid.
There is a table showing the UK contributions (p17). The figure that the UK would have to pay is the top line which would equate to about £350 million a week.
However, the UK has a rebate. Again the calculation is complex but the important thing to understand is that the rebate is applied before any money is sent to the EU. Rebate sounds like you pay money then get some back (like "cash back" on a purchase), which is probably where the misconception comes from. A better name would be discount. So the UK does not pay the top line figure to the EU, it would if we didn't have the rebate/discount, we only pay the top figure less the rebate (second line). The proof of this is buried in the annex here (p33).
Note the bit about no money changing hands.
So the honest answer to how much we send to the EU every week is closer to £250 million a week. If someone asked "what did you pay for that coat?" when you just bought a coat that was £350 full price but used a discount card to get £100 off, "£350" would not be an accurate answer even though the coat would have cost £350. The honest answer would be "£250".
Of course what the UK pays is not the same as what it would save if it left as the EU pays some money back. This is the third line and equates to £175 million a week.
Of course all of the above numbers are big, but they need to be compared to the UK government overall spend. After all a £350 coat may be a lot for you or me but to Mark Zuckerberg or a Russian oligarch, it's pocket change.
The UK Government spends (in round numbers), £14,000 million a week. In that context even the £350 million a week figure is only 2.5% and the £175million we would save is just over 1%.
To put other things in context, the UK spends about:
- £3,000 million a week on pensions
- £2,000 million a week on Healthcare (mainly NHS)
- £1,500 million a week on Education
- £860 million a week on defence
- £175 million a week on the EU
(see http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2015UKbn for figures)
Turkey will join the EU and 75million Muslims will be free to settle in the UK.
Before Turkey can join the EU it has to satisfy 33 "chapters" of EU law, basically the 33 areas like justice, human rights, legal standards, environmental standards etc that EU members take for granted.
So far Turkey has met 1 condition (science and research) since the mid 90's. 8 of the chapters won't even be looked at until Turkey signs the Additional Protocol of the Ankara Association Agreement to Cyprus.
Then all the existing members of the EU will have to vote to let Turkey join. It's likely for historical reasons that Greece and Cyprus will be extremely difficult to persuade, but even then, assuming the UK remains in the EU the UK has a vote.
Finally, Germany is more likely to be a destination for Turks than the UK. Germany has historic ties with Turkey and is already home to 1.5 million Turkish citizens and nearly 2 million more citizens with at least one Turkish parent. The UK has around 150,000 Turkish citizens and maybe 300,000 Turkish Cypriots (from the 1930's)
So in short, Turkey is unlikely to join for a long time if at all and if it did it's probable most will head to Germany.
The visa free travel scheme agreed in 2015 will allow Turkish citizens 90 days per 180 for business, tourism and family reasons. They will not have any rights to settle or work. Crucially the UK is excluded from the agreement because it will ONLY apply to the Schengen zone. So there will be no change from the current situation.
So far Turkey has met 1 condition (science and research) since the mid 90's. 8 of the chapters won't even be looked at until Turkey signs the Additional Protocol of the Ankara Association Agreement to Cyprus.
Then all the existing members of the EU will have to vote to let Turkey join. It's likely for historical reasons that Greece and Cyprus will be extremely difficult to persuade, but even then, assuming the UK remains in the EU the UK has a vote.
Finally, Germany is more likely to be a destination for Turks than the UK. Germany has historic ties with Turkey and is already home to 1.5 million Turkish citizens and nearly 2 million more citizens with at least one Turkish parent. The UK has around 150,000 Turkish citizens and maybe 300,000 Turkish Cypriots (from the 1930's)
So in short, Turkey is unlikely to join for a long time if at all and if it did it's probable most will head to Germany.
The visa free travel scheme agreed in 2015 will allow Turkish citizens 90 days per 180 for business, tourism and family reasons. They will not have any rights to settle or work. Crucially the UK is excluded from the agreement because it will ONLY apply to the Schengen zone. So there will be no change from the current situation.
Great post, but it still doesn't make the remain case very well, in the past 24 hours i have gone from remain to leave to remain again, but now i'm leaning back to Brexit, look at the post i made a page or two ago, a lot of Brits won't be voting with facts, but with their hearts, in the long run, do we want to save our country ? And can it really be done inside the EU ? I am the first to argue and rail against opposition during the general elections (i'm labour, but not a corbyn supporter) but in this referendum i can't figure out who i agree with anymore, sometimes i'm in agreement with Cameron (unsettling i know) but often i agree with Farage and Galloway who interviewed Farage on RT....and believe me i don't like agreeing with Farage (thatcherite) and Galloway (apologist for extremism in my opinion). I truly don't know which way i'll vote, and i can't be alone.
Last edited:
Thanks for that post, very well presented information. Rep is not enough.
You've done a much better job than whoever produced all the referendum gubbins that's been junk-mailed to me over the last few weeks. I've ploughed through the lot and not seen a single sourced fact, all I've seen is a lot of rubbish/urban legends and doom scenario's designed to frighten the stupid into obedience to whichever side happens to be spouting them. I'm disgusted at the lackluster fact free arguments being put forward by both sides. This issue is far too important to be mishandled so badly neither faction deserves to receive a tick in box.
I'm still voting remain (never wavered) but the official remain campaign did nothing to achieve that.
You could be wrong, think how close the Scottish refferendum was, this looks like it could be closer.
Last edited:
55:45 is actually not that close. The polls were predicting a much closer call IIRC.
Yeah, the polls were predicting a close one but in the end it wasn't that close. Could be the same here.
A really big margin for IN would be good, 60/40 or better, hopefully that would shut up the leavers and give the uk government a mandate to really get stuck into (not integrate, just get involved) the EU.
I don't buy the "if it's close we should have another", unless Leave agree beforehand that if it's close either way we should have a second (maybe with mandatory voting)
A really big margin for IN would be good, 60/40 or better, hopefully that would shut up the leavers and give the uk government a mandate to really get stuck into (not integrate, just get involved) the EU.
I don't buy the "if it's close we should have another", unless Leave agree beforehand that if it's close either way we should have a second (maybe with mandatory voting)
Surely the whole point of David Cameron's 'renegotiation' was to demonstrate that we could get 'stuck in' and get some meaningful reforms. Within a week of returning with his Chamberlain level deal, he stopped talking about it and moved on to scaremongering. Had it been substantive, it would be a boon which would have undermined the potency of the Leave argument - yet it's not. We've got gaseous declarations which have been cobbled together using mechanisms outside of the EU. Why? Because proper treaty change may trigger referendums which the EU will desperately want to avoid.
Suggesting that we can get stuck in to the EU from an orbital position outside of the Eurozone is fanciful thinking. Where QMV is in force, the Eurozone will act in it's own interests and we'll be left in the margins, continuing to lead the list of nations that have been repeatedly outvoted. We will neither be full in control of our destiny nor fully engaged within the EU. There are two honest positions that a country can take now - the Eurozone or independence.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Surely better the spineless politician that you can vote out than the faceless politician that you can't?
To my mind, this referendum really has underlined the need for domestic political reform because the argument to vote for Remain because our own government are [ expletive ] isn't a healthy one IMHO.
I think (and please check my maths) that the members of the Eurozone have 227 votes between them and under QMV, a proposal needs 260 votes so they are 33 votes short of being able to form a "cartel".
Cameron failed because the things he wanted to ask for were never going to be given. The whole EU migrant benefits thing was theatre for little Englanders.
Firstly it flies in the face of one of the EU's most cherished principles, that an EU citizens should be treated the same as a local.
Secondly, it fixed a problem that only ever existed in the minds of Daily Mail readers, that of EU migrants coming to the UK simply to sponge of benefits. The NAO has released figures showing that 80% of EU migrants claim no benefits whatsoever. Of the remain 20% a portion (unknown) will simply be claiming universal benefits like child benefit (which will now be scaled to reflect the cost of living where the children reside if not in the UK).
The UK already has a bunch of special benefits like the rebate and vetoes and opt outs in various areas. Asking for more in a core area was never going to fly.
getting "stuck in" didn't mean asking for more exceptions, it meant building alliances and consensus in the EU so everyone still moves in the same direction, but now a direction the UK has had a hand in deciding.
Last edited:
Without taking sides (I am undecided), I heard a nice quote earlier today:
"Schrodinger's immigrant: someone who comes over here and simultaneously steals our jobs and sponges off our benefits."
"Schrodinger's immigrant: someone who comes over here and simultaneously steals our jobs and sponges off our benefits."
Last edited:
So you're suggesting that Cameron's renegotiations were a sop to xenophobes that should never have happened because we should all be treated equally as EU citizens? Remember - it was Cameron himself who suggested that the EU needed fundamental reform at Bloomberg and when it came to his discussions with other member nations, it wasn't driven at all by people in the UK. How could it have been when he wouldn't even spell out what his list of demands were until after the negotiations had concluded? It was Cameron who decided that he'd tackle the migration issue from the perspective of benefits and it's been widely mocked because it's likely to be ineffectual and highlights the real issue - which is not that migrants come here at all. It's that the control of who comes in from the EU has been taken away from us. We've been disempowered in a way which transforms the meaning of our own sovereignty and governance.
Am I against FoM and migration generally? No - I have no issues, as long as the right to put a break on the matter is within our power if needed. EEA/EFTA would actually give us this with a unilateral emergency break.
Everything you say makes sense - if you consider it from an EU centric position and you've already made the mental transition from the nation to the federal entity. If you don't consider yourself an EU citizen and you don't agree with the transfer of competencies from your country to a remote bureaucracy then it's a horror story that you'd fight tooth and nail against. Whether it's security and intelligence sharing or trade, I can see no reason why we need to give up our sovereignty and become part of an EU superstate to get it done when we can work in an intergovernmental manner and get the same outcomes. All too often it's put to us that supranationalism is the only way these things can happen - but that point of view only serves one organisation in the long run, the EU.
I don't particularly want anything.
But there are claims and a counter claims. The only consistencies are that claims are always extreme and always denied.
In the original referendum, (which was supposed to settle the issue once and for all), we were given the straight facts.
- Status