UK EU Referendum Thoughts

[haji]

what's yr argument for abstaining?

it's my preferred option, as i don't want to put myself in either camp (it only encourages them!). It's a pity that there's no campaign to make abstention a protest vote against divisive referenda.

 

[john eden]

Well essentially that I hate the EU but don't want to be associated with the intensification of the anti-immigrant agenda which is now synonymous with Brexit.

It didn't have to be this way, but it now is - the left has largely failed to get its shit together and promote progressive leave campaign.

I am quite torn because I think, in principle, that this is a one-off opportunity to make things better by leaving. But it's just being pissed away really.

 

[Slothrop]

I honestly don't see how leaving will make things better. It'll most likely give us a recession, another Tory government, another ideologically driven assault on the welfare state and further shrinking of the public sector in the name of "austerity". A lot of people are going to suffer in a very real way if we leave, and if EU membership was the only thing keeping us from a socialist utopia then that might be a price worth paying, but it isn't and it isn't.

I'm voting in.

 

[john eden]

I honestly don't see how leaving will make things better. It'll most likely give us a recession, another Tory government, another ideologically driven assault on the welfare state and further shrinking of the public sector in the name of "austerity". A lot of people are going to suffer in a very real way if we leave, and if EU membership was the only thing keeping us from a socialist utopia then that might be a price worth paying, but it isn't and it isn't.

I'm voting in.

I don't think anyone is saying it's the only thing keeping us from a socialist utopia.

But do you not even have the tiniest misgivings about legitimising the recent treatment of Greece? The treatment of immigrants at the borders of the EU?

 

[sadmanbarty]

My current thinking, of course correct me if I've got something wrong or missed something out.

1. The nature of the referendum itself

This referendum is more likely to be a choice between our current system and a Norway style system rather than a “straight leave”.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/condorcet-paradox-work-rock-paper-scissors-eu-referendum#.V2ALnOYrIza

2. Sovereignty

There have been some philosophical arguments about whether true sovereignty is about autonomy or being able to assert your interests. In any case….

If the following is indeed a comprehensive summation of the issues surrounding sovereignty, then Leave has very much exaggerated the issue*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nge-on-british-sovereignty-and-if-the-uk-vot/

Britain ‘gets its way’ overwhelmingly more than it doesn’t in the European Parliament.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-britain-get-its-way-at-the-european-top-table-58610

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/dec/17/how-often-do-uk-meps-get-their-way

* [With regards to some of the farming issues I would point to this study from the Yorkshire Agricultural Society:

http://yas.co.uk/uploads/files/YAS_FSN_Brexit_-_Full_Report.pdf

and also this statement from the National Farmers Union:

http://www.nfuonline.com/news/eu-referendum/

both of which say that remain is best for British farmers]

3. The Economy

88% of economists think that leaving Europe will be bad for the economy.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3739/Economists-Views-on-Brexit.aspx

Experts from the following organizations all point to negative effects on the economy if the UK leaves Europe:

Bank of England, IMF, OECD, CBI, IFS, World Bank, Oxford Economics, Treasury and the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance.

For those who say economists largely get things wrong:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...s-but-we-are-right-about-brexit-a3267601.html

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8299

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/...&utm_campaign=Feed:+MainlyMacro+(mainly+macro

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-politicisation-of-truth.html

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/for-economists-project-fear-is-brexit.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/05/record


4. The NHS

Leaving Europe will likely leave the UK with less money to spend on public services.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/blog/346

Dr Sarah Wallotson defected from the Leave campaign to remain because of the likely damage to the NHS.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-wollaston-defects-vote-leave-remain-campaign

“The Royal College of Physicians (RCP), a professional doctors' body representing 30,000 medics, argued the bloc helped guarantee patient safety and has provided thousands of frontline staff.
Meanwhile the British Medical Association, which represents 150,000 doctors but is remaining neutral in the debate, has released a list of benefits to remaining in the EU far outweighing its list of negatives.”
https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...thousands-doctors-voice-support-eu-membership
5. Immigration

Again, it is likely that Britain would still have to accept the free movement of people after leaving the European Union.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/condorcet-paradox-work-rock-paper-scissors-eu-referendum#.V2ALnOYrIza

Besides European immigrants contribute fiscally, increase demand in the economy and fill skills shortages, which particularly benefits small businesses as numerous studies show.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

The studies shown in Table 4.2 show that immigrations impact on wages is insignificant or minimal, which is supported by other studies too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf

 

[sadmanbarty]

But do you not even have the tiniest misgivings about legitimising the recent treatment of Greece? The treatment of immigrants at the borders of the EU?

Would britan not being in the EU (or there being no EU at all) change how immigrants and refugees are treated?

A quote from simon wren lewis about Greece and the EU:

The fact that democracy was overridden in Greece so cruelly was not the result of actions of unelected bureaucrats, but of elected finance ministers from the other union countries. One reason these finance ministers refused to write off any debt was because of pressure from their own electorates. This exercise in raw political power worked because the Greek people wanted to stay in the Euro.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[vimothy]

It's statements like this that make it hard to take Leave seriously.

Hitchens isn't part of the Leave campaign. From what little he's written about the referendum (it's unconstitutional, it's Tory opportunism, etc), I doubt he'll even vote.

 

[droid]

It'll be a rough few years, but on the plus side, we'll get a good chunk of your FDI, Scotland will get independence, NI will head further down the road of devolution and eventual absorption by us - and who knows what Wales will do.

England will end up as a lonely and diminished pariah state, and rightly so!

 

[vimothy]

Everyone wins.

 

[Slothrop]

It'll be a rough few years, but on the plus side, we'll get a good chunk of your FDI, Scotland will get independence, NI will head further down the road of devolution and eventual absorption by us - and who knows what Wales will do.

England will end up as a lonely and diminished pariah state, and rightly so!

But at least Boris will get his neoliberal Daily Mail island to play with.

 

[Slothrop]

But do you not even have the tiniest misgivings about legitimising the recent treatment of Greece? The treatment of immigrants at the borders of the EU?

Plenty. But I don't think that the UK leaving would make matters better. I've also got plenty of misgivings (putting it mildly) about things that the UK has done independently of the EU - we're hardly a shining light on refugees ourselves, for instance.

 

[john eden]

Would britan not being in the EU (or there being no EU at all) change how immigrants and refugees are treated?

No, because the EU is an unreformable, undemocratic neoliberal monolith.

 

[vimothy]

It's more likely that Parliament will resist at every step though, isn't it?

There is a pro-Remain majority in the House of Commons of 454 MPs to 147.

...

Ministers have told the BBC they expect pro-EU MPs to conduct what one called a "reverse Maastricht" process - a reference to the long parliamentary campaign fought by Tory eurosceptic MPs in the 1990s against legislation deepening EU integration.

Like then as now, the Conservative government has a small working majority of just 17.

They say it would be legitimate for MPs to push for the UK to stay in the single market because the Leave campaign has refused to spell out what trading relationship it wants the UK to have with the EU in the future.

As such, a post-Brexit government could not claim it had a popular mandate for a particular model.

One minister said: "This is not fantasy. This is a huge probability.

"The longer we move away from the referendum, the more the economic pressures will grow to keep some links with the single market."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36457120

 

[Mr. Tea]

Like then as now, the Conservative government has a small working majority of just 17.

o_0

 

[sadmanbarty]

A little tidbit from an Anthony Hilton piece in the standard. Of course I have no idea if its true.

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'"

 

[droid]

Cant disagree with much here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/30/eu-referendum-neoliberal-irvine-welsh

 

[Woebot]

daniel finkelstein in the times

"Europe was to be our deus ex machina; it was to create a political argument with insular socialism; dish the Liberals by stealing their clothes; give us something new after 12-13 years; act as a catalyst of modernisation; give us a new place in the international sun. It was Macmillan’s ace, and de Gaulle trumped it.”

This is how Michael Fraser, one of Supermac’s advisers, described the moment when General Charles de Gaulle doomed Harold Macmillan. On January 14, 1963, the French president said “Non” to Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community. The prime minister resigned later that year and it was another decade before we were allowed in.

That critical moment in our relationship with Europe sheds light on the critical decision we face next week. It helps answer the question: If we were not already in the European Union, would we choose to join it?

Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP, posed this question the other day, and it’s a powerful way of making the argument for voting Leave. It deserves a careful reply from those of us who wish to remain. And in any case, it’s always best to tackle an opposing argument at its strongest point.

I had better begin with an act of surrender before attempting to advance. All other things being equal, if the British people were now being asked to join for the first time I don’t believe they would. An understandable desire not to take unnecessary risks provides a large part of the support for remaining in the EU, and even that support is under great pressure. Without it, Daniel Hannan is unquestionably correct in assuming his side would win. Yet those words “all other things being equal” are being made to do a lot of work. They stand for an assumption that if we had not joined the community, things would be much the same as they are today. And that is an audacious assumption.

Let’s go back to Macmillan. Days after becoming prime minister in 1957, he sent Michael Fraser a note. It read: “I’m always hearing about the middle class. What is it they really want? Can you put it down on a sheet of notepaper, and then I will see whether we can give it to them.”

This apparently flippant request expressed Macmillan’s entirely serious understanding that the country he had inherited was changing — socially, economically and in its position in the world — and that the governing class didn’t know how to adapt. If he was going to succeed he would need to respond.

Britain was, not to put too fine a point on it, failing. It was being overtaken economically by Germany and overpowered by France. The end of Empire was coming and the Commonwealth seemed unlikely to provide a secure source of either economic or diplomatic power. The Americans, crucial to our defence and international clout, were clear that their primary interest in any kind of special relationship was our ability to act as a bridge with other European countries.

It seemed obvious to Macmillan, and indeed the bulk of the Conservative Party, that outside the European community Britain faced economic and diplomatic eclipse. He recognised that joining would involve some sacrifice of control and independence. He knew, too, that other members wanted a more politically integrated Europe than Britain did, but he thought the gains outweighed the risk.

This country is simply a better place to be than it was in 1973
So what happened when, after ten years of attempts, we finally joined? Since 1973 we have grown faster than Germany, France, Italy and even the US. And in the single market era we have grown by 62 per cent while Germany has grown by 35 per cent. And Switzerland, which is outside the EU but a member of the European Free Trade Area? 48 per cent.

It is easy to respond by suggesting that this growth has occurred despite the EU rather than because of it. We have done well entirely because we have adopted a different economic model to our partners. Yet consider the admission that this response involves. It admits that the EU does not dictate our laws and economic model. We have been able to diverge, rather than converge, with our neighbours.

We have also managed to maintain a strong relationship with the US on exactly the basis that Macmillan posited. We act as a bridge to Europe and are valued for that reason.

There is another point worth adding. It is not just us who would be different if we hadn’t joined the community. The EU would be different too. We were critical to the creation of the single market and to enlargement.

So a big part of my answer to the question, “If we were not already a member of the European Union, would we choose to join it?” is that when we were not a member we did choose to join it. We thought it would help correct weaknesses that we saw no other way to correct. And it did help tackle those weaknesses.

This country is tangibly more prosperous, more powerful, more tolerant, more welcoming, more democratic, more hopeful; simply a better place to be than it was in 1973. And despite sharing power with other EU member states, we are still distinctively British and different politically, economically and socially from our neighbours.

However, this is not enough by itself. Although Macmillan anticipated that we would be in tension with other members who would want to integrate more than we did, this has since become reality. Joining now involves much more serious power sharing than it would have done in 1963.

The best response to this is that virtually every democratic European country eligible to join has wanted to do so as soon as possible. They have, each one of them, perceived the trade-off as worthwhile. They believe it makes them richer and stronger.

The argument that we are different, that they had to join because they are weak and we wouldn’t have to because we are strong, makes, once again, that big assumption. It assumes that if we hadn’t joined the EU we would be as strong as we are now economically and diplomatically.

But Macmillan didn’t think we would be and neither has a single serving prime minister since.

 

[sadmanbarty]

 

[droid]

Monbiot:

By comparison with the British system, however, this noxious sewer is a crystal spring. Every stream of corporate effluent with which the EU poisons political life has a more malodorous counterpart in the UK. The new Deregulation Act, a meta-law of astonishing scope, scarcely known and scarcely debated, insists that all regulators must now “have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”. Rare wildlife, wheelchair ramps, speed limits, children’s lungs: all must establish their contribution to GDP. What else, after all, are they for?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/european-union-eu-britain-sovereignty

 

[Woebot]

i like these videos:



very nicely done actually