INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#21 Post by Nick » February 21st, 2016, 11:50 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:deffo for staying in, though the evil and occasionally bored part of me would be interested to see the chaos which IMO will follow a Brexit vote in this referendum. But what happens should the popular will be a vote to leave? Parliament actually makes the decision, and will MPs follow the result if it is a narrow one to leave?
There are some MP's (possibly including Boris) who think that we can get a better deal by voting no. Hmmm... seems a dangerous course to me.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#22 Post by Nick » February 21st, 2016, 11:56 pm

lewist wrote:
...23 June, just after the Scottish Election? That's just not acceptable. We need the election to focus on Scottish issues but the Media will be banging on about Europe.

Cameron is a vile ignoramus.
IIRC Parliament only needed to declare an election 3 weeks in advance prior to the fixed parliaments act. Surely the Scots are not so overwhelmed ofr stupid or otherwise deficient that they can't cope with that? Just mischief-making by the usual suspects.... : :wink:

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#23 Post by lewist » February 22nd, 2016, 7:48 am

Nick wrote:
lewist wrote:
...23 June, just after the Scottish Election? That's just not acceptable. We need the election to focus on Scottish issues but the Media will be banging on about Europe.

Cameron is a vile ignoramus.
IIRC Parliament only needed to declare an election 3 weeks in advance prior to the fixed parliaments act. Surely the Scots are not so overwhelmed ofr stupid or otherwise deficient that they can't cope with that? Just mischief-making by the usual suspects.... : :wink:
That would be David Cameron, then. He really is vile. My OP stands, Nick.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#24 Post by Tetenterre » February 22nd, 2016, 10:18 am

Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:the stupid EU policies
Which ones?
I'd start with a thorough review of agricultural policies, repealing the imbecilic stance on GMOs, removing VAT from a number of essentials...
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:the stupid EU policies
Which ones?
and what is TT's preferred alternative to Labservalib government?
Assuming that I'm not going to get in as a benign dictator (mainly because (a) nobody would vote for me and (b) even I think I'd be crap at it) some species of coalition of small parties (still hoping that Lab & Con will self-destruct enoughto make this enevitable).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#25 Post by Alan H » February 23rd, 2016, 12:00 am

An interesting document from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science: Life after BREXIT: What are the UK’s options outside the European Union?In terms of what the UK would , it suggests these:

The Norwegian model – joining the European Economic Area
The Swiss model – bilateral treaties
Re-joining the European Free Trade Association
World Trade Organization – the fallback option?

What dopes Boris think?

Oh! Wait! He's concerned about tea bags and balloons.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
John G
Posts: 74
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 2:44 am

Re: In or out?

#26 Post by John G » February 23rd, 2016, 3:52 am

Across the pond, this topic reached the top of the CBC world news http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/britain ... -1.3458605 today.

Opinion seems to fall on the liberal-conservative spectrum, with a loud conservative crowd cheering for a Brexit. A failed experiment was one comment. (This is my interpretation as to the political leanings.)

From reading this board, I gather that most folks are for working inside the system. That said, most folks here think rationally about the choices.

If folks had to pick one or two items that have failed and one or two that has succeeded as a result of joining the EU, what would stand?

Simplistic I know but Canada is going to sign the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partners agreement.
(Now I have to go read the text of this darn thing. :sad2: )

It seems that we either join and have a voice or don't and suffer. A very simplistic summary and not a well formed one on my part. A legacy of our conservative government that our new liberal one is having to swallow.
A good learner is forever walking the narrow path between blindness and hallucination. ― Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#27 Post by Alan H » February 23rd, 2016, 10:31 am

If you've not made your mind up already, I'm sure this erudite, thought-provoking and...erm... interesting video will convince you:

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#28 Post by Tetenterre » February 24th, 2016, 1:10 pm

That is just so wrong on so many levels!
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#29 Post by Alan H » February 24th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Do you think it'll stand a chance in Eurovision?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#30 Post by Nick » February 24th, 2016, 7:59 pm

Tetenterre wrote:That is just so wrong on so many levels!
... like murder in a lift.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#31 Post by Tetenterre » February 25th, 2016, 11:23 am

Nick wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:That is just so wrong on so many levels!
... like murder in a lift.
Nah, not as classy as that - more like a curry-and-lager fart in a lift!
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#32 Post by animist » March 1st, 2016, 8:24 pm

at last I have got some sort of answer to the query I keep posting about the legal status of a referendum vote to leave. This is from BBC News:

"Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?

Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question - could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?

The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.

It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."

In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020."

My initial reaction is to query the assumption about the "wrath of voters". Yes, Brexiters who felt cheated would indeed be exceeding wrath. But since it is highly unlikely that a Brexit decision would be any sort of landslide, I rather doubt that these naughty MPS should worry too much

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#33 Post by Alan H » March 3rd, 2016, 10:57 am

Iain Duncan Scrooge clearly doesn't do irony... Iain Duncan Smith accuses David Cameron of having a 'low opinion of the British people' in seari
Iain Duncan Smith twisted the knife on David Cameron today as he accused the Prime Minister of having a "low opinion of the British people".

In a searing blue-on-blue attack, Work and Pensions Secretary claimed the PM's EU campaign was so cowardly that "I don't know why anybody would want to run a country like this".

The Tory welfare chief avoided mentioning his boss by name - but left his meaning crystal clear by blasting the claim Brexit would be a "leap into the dark".

That warning is the key catchphrase being used by the Prime Minister as he urges voters to remain in the EU in the In/Out referendum on June 23.
Is this the start of the public internecine war that the Tories have been waging mostly in private for the past few decades but which is so badly overdue and needed by the Tories and, far more importantly, the country?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#34 Post by stevenw888 » March 21st, 2016, 11:35 am

The problem for me (and the average British voter) is that the issues are far too complex for anyone to be able to make an 'informed' decision. I've watched Question Time for the last three weeks, and now I have even more questions than I did before I started watching! Added to this we have the unhelpful 'non-information' fed to us by Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. Headline stuff only, such as "XXXXX jobs will be lost if we leave the E.U." The next day, "XXXXXX jobs will be saved if we leave the E.U.". Therefore the only way that the average voter will vote will be on a 'gut feeling' which is worrying.
I'm not even sure that the British public should be asked to make such a decision. In 1965, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty, a liberal policy that most voters would support now. However had there been a referendum in 1965, undoubtedly the British public would have voted against such a measure, as feelings ran high that hanging wasn't such a bad thing (ask my dad!).
Therefore we are not qualified, we don't understand the issues, we can only guess how either option might affect us personally, and solid facts are hard to come by. I will vote, and I lean towards voting in favour of staying in the E.U., but currently I am still very much in the 'undecided' camp.
Anyone any ideas how the polls are shaping up - is it going to be neck and neck?
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Caring Guy
Posts: 21
Joined: December 18th, 2015, 3:47 pm

Re: In or out?

#35 Post by Caring Guy » March 21st, 2016, 12:02 pm

stevenw888 wrote:The problem for me (and the average British voter) is that the issues are far too complex for anyone to be able to make an 'informed' decision. I've watched Question Time for the last three weeks, and now I have even more questions than I did before I started watching! Added to this we have the unhelpful 'non-information' fed to us by Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. Headline stuff only, such as "XXXXX jobs will be lost if we leave the E.U." The next day, "XXXXXX jobs will be saved if we leave the E.U.". Therefore the only way that the average voter will vote will be on a 'gut feeling' which is worrying.
I'm not even sure that the British public should be asked to make such a decision. In 1965, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty, a liberal policy that most voters would support now. However had there been a referendum in 1965, undoubtedly the British public would have voted against such a measure, as feelings ran high that hanging wasn't such a bad thing (ask my dad!).
Therefore we are not qualified, we don't understand the issues, we can only guess how either option might affect us personally, and solid facts are hard to come by. I will vote, and I lean towards voting in favour of staying in the E.U., but currently I am still very much in the 'undecided' camp.
Anyone any ideas how the polls are shaping up - is it going to be neck and neck?
You're absolutely right. :clap:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#36 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2016, 12:05 pm

Caring Guy wrote:
stevenw888 wrote:The problem for me (and the average British voter) is that the issues are far too complex for anyone to be able to make an 'informed' decision. I've watched Question Time for the last three weeks, and now I have even more questions than I did before I started watching! Added to this we have the unhelpful 'non-information' fed to us by Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. Headline stuff only, such as "XXXXX jobs will be lost if we leave the E.U." The next day, "XXXXXX jobs will be saved if we leave the E.U.". Therefore the only way that the average voter will vote will be on a 'gut feeling' which is worrying.
I'm not even sure that the British public should be asked to make such a decision. In 1965, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty, a liberal policy that most voters would support now. However had there been a referendum in 1965, undoubtedly the British public would have voted against such a measure, as feelings ran high that hanging wasn't such a bad thing (ask my dad!).
Therefore we are not qualified, we don't understand the issues, we can only guess how either option might affect us personally, and solid facts are hard to come by. I will vote, and I lean towards voting in favour of staying in the E.U., but currently I am still very much in the 'undecided' camp.
Anyone any ideas how the polls are shaping up - is it going to be neck and neck?
You're absolutely right. :clap:
Since the leavers are advocating something that clearly will be a huge upheaval and change, the onus is on them to provide good evidence and reasoned argument for a change to the status quo. I've not seen any.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#37 Post by Dave B » March 21st, 2016, 2:09 pm

. . . good evidence and reasoned argument . . .
From politicians?

Don't be silly, Allan!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#38 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2016, 3:33 pm

Dave B wrote:
. . . good evidence and reasoned argument . . .
From politicians?

Don't be silly, Allan!
:redface:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#39 Post by Nick » March 21st, 2016, 8:32 pm

Alan H wrote:Since the leavers are advocating something that clearly will be a huge upheaval and change, the onus is on them to provide good evidence and reasoned argument for a change to the status quo.
No it's not. We have a choice of 2 options. It is up to each side to lay out the evidence and argument why their option is preferable. I don't think anyone is claiming that there would be no upheaval if we left, but the relevant question is whether we would be better off, or not, over, say, a generation. There are also non-economic arguments, against the undemocratic Commission, say, or "a yearning to be free", as some SNP supporters argue against the UK.
I've not seen any.
Then you haven't been looking. Just one example: the introduction of the Euro has directly contributed to the mass unemployment of millions of EU citizens. If that is an example of the benefits of being in the EU, then we should be very concerned for the future.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#40 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2016, 8:57 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Since the leavers are advocating something that clearly will be a huge upheaval and change, the onus is on them to provide good evidence and reasoned argument for a change to the status quo.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
I've not seen any.
Then you haven't been looking.
Yes I have, but the onus is still on those that want to change to provide reason and evidence for that change. But maybe you're confusing rhetoric and suchlike for good evidence?
Just one example: the introduction of the Euro has directly contributed to the mass unemployment of millions of EU citizens. If that is an example of the benefits of being in the EU, then we should be very concerned for the future.
Case in point.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#41 Post by Alan H » March 22nd, 2016, 1:23 am

John Major: Voting to leave will poison Europe and divide West
This June, the UK will vote upon whether to leave or remain in the EU. This vote will be momentous. It will decide Britain’s place in the world for generations to come.

There are many positive reasons for membership.

When we joined the EU we were the “sick man” of Europe: today, as a result of our domestic reforms and membership of the European Single Market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.

Within the next 20 years – on present policies, and with continuing full access to the Single Market – the UK is likely to be the biggest economy in Europe.

And surely – in a global market drawing ever closer together – it is verging on the reckless for us to seek divorce from the world’s pre-eminent trading bloc?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply