Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

Do you have any specific examples that contradict the conclusions reached in that article? (I'm not asking to try and trip you up, I don't actually know). A bit of back and forth here will probably give us a better debate than the politicians are serving up.

I don't remember the exact details but it was the early stages of the Lisbon treaty.

The EU were facing defeat so they essentially renamed a couple of articles and temporarily described the Lisbon Treaty as an amendment instead of a treaty so as to avoid referenda they were going to lose.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't remember the exact details but it was the early stages of the Lisbon treaty.

The EU were facing defeat so they essentially renamed a couple of articles and temporarily described the Lisbon Treaty as an amendment instead of a treaty so as to avoid referenda they were going to lose.

Sorry got that wrong - that's my memory failing me.

It was the constitution changes (which required unilateral agreement) which were renamed as a treaty (only needed a majority) in order to cheat Europe into a new constitution they didn't want.

 

[the dza]

Sorry got that wrong - that's my memory failing me.

It was the constitution changes (which required unilateral agreement) which were renamed as a treaty (only needed a majority) in order to cheat Europe into a new constitution they didn't want.

That's not good. Definitely a tick in the 'leave' column. For me, the bigger ticks are in the 'remain' column so that's how I'll be voting. I hope it's a decisive vote, one way or another, then the country can move on.

 

[scaramanga]

That's not good. Definitely a tick in the 'leave' column. For me, the bigger ticks are in the 'remain' column so that's how I'll be voting. I hope it's a decisive vote, one way or another, then the country can move on.

Agreed on all of that.

On every measure of principle I'm for leaving, but I want to remain purely because I dislike the idea of financial risk.

 

[milo]

We may not always be right, but to suggest as Nigel Farage did on Marr that IFS is biased by our funding is untrue


Nigel Farage on the BBC Andrew Marr programme this morning alleged that because the IFS gets three quarters of its funding from the UK government and the EU that its research couldn’t be trusted. He specifically said “If you work for government and are funded by the EU and you’re asked to produce a report you tend to do what you’re told and you don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

The facts are these:

- We are an independent charitable organisation and do not in any sense “work for” the UK government. We were not asked by either the UK government or the EU to produce any report on the implications of the UK leaving the EU, and we are certainly not told what to conclude in these – or any other – outputs;

- The IFS has for over 40 years been an entirely independent and fearless body, beholden to nobody, frequently and publicly criticising the policies of governments (and opposition parties) when merited;

- About half of IFS funding comes from the Economic and Social Research Council and a further 10% from the European Research Council. Further details are provided here http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/finance. The former is funded by the UK government and the latter by the EU. But they are wholly independent of each, awarding funding on a competitive basis only in response to proposals for research of world class academic quality, which are subject to external peer-review. We are proud to receive funding from these bodies as a mark of the quality and objectivity of our work;

- These are the same bodies that fund research in universities in the UK. To suggest that we “work for government” because of this funding arrangement, and that what we say is affected by that, is tantamount to suggesting that this is true of all university based academics. In fact these funding bodies operate explicitly to ensure distance between government and researchers as a way of ensuring academic freedom is protected. Mr Farage’s comments are an attack not just on the IFS but suggest that academic independence does not exist;

If Mr Farage disagrees with our economic analysis then we are happy to debate it with him. For him to suggest that what we say, right or wrong, is not what we actually understand to be true, but rather is influenced by our funders, is biased, or results from being told what to say by the UK government or the EU, is simply untrue.

(Note: Mr Farage also implied that the IFS, and others suggesting that Brexit might have negative economic consequences, supported joining the Euro. In fact IFS researchers have neither produced any research or reports, nor made statements, supporting the UK joining the Euro.).

http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/blog/351

 

[milo]

Sorry got that wrong - that's my memory failing me.

It was the constitution changes (which required unilateral agreement) which were renamed as a treaty (only needed a majority) in order to cheat Europe into a new constitution they didn't want.

I thought that it was some national governments that wanted it to be re(named)framed rather than the Commission.

 

[milo]

 

[milo]

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx

 

[SpurMeUp]

Leaving would make little sense to me. Yes it wouldn't make a huge difference to most peoples lives, and those who vote leave will feel that we can control boarders and stop immigration; which has been vital to our economy. Close boarders to immigration and the economy would suffer and shrink. Just look at London, all the talent from all over the world (e.g. in banking and IT), supported by low paid workers from abroad (cleaners, builders etc), and this cash from all over the world reinvested pushing the housing market on. With London out the EU, we'd fall back. No doubt about it.

Since WWII Great Britain's global power has diminished. But we still have the 5th largest economy in the world. Out of Europe, having to negotiate trading agreements with vastly larger consumer economies, without access to the EU freemarket or being able to help shape it, it would be the end of any Great in Britain. Yes we'd have sovereignty, but we'd be isolationist, inward, and lose economically.

Not everything comes down to money though. But to me it is so obvious that its better for the next generation that we remain. How can anyone see it otherwise?

 

[SpurMeUp]

https://twitter.com/x/status/739777027318927360

Interesting.

I think some Conservatives, like Boris think that a vote to leave would allow a renegotiation and a partial leave. But that would be undemocratic. Interesting to see that even those who preach Leave, don't really believe it! Nor do 9 out of 10 economists, the US President, the IMF etc etc. Essentially, those that know, know it wouldn't be in the UKs interests.

Boris was right, what a waste of time, instead of focusing on the real issues - plenty of zhit the government should be sorting out, rather than this bolocks.

 

[milo]

Interesting.

I think some Conservatives, like Boris think that a vote to leave would allow a renegotiation and a partial leave. But that would be undemocratic. Interesting to see that even those who preach Leave, don't really believe it! Nor do 9 out of 10 economists, the US President, the IMF etc etc. Essentially, those that know, know it wouldn't be in the UKs interests.

Boris was right, what a waste of time, instead of focusing on the real issues - plenty of zhit the government should be sorting out, rather than this bolocks.

I think that Boris thinks that backing Brexit and undermining Cameron will increase his chances of replacing him. Pretty much everything that he has said and written before backing the leave campaign suggests that his real views are different.

 

[milo]

AA Gill introduces me to a new experience, agreeing with him

We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side...

...Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...t?shareToken=22c0c5784e91b1719c75b8cc537ef512

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think in the end, the whole EU debate comes down to whether you are confident in the UK Government running the country's Economy for the medium to long-term vs how confident your are that the EU can run the Economy EU-wide and whether the EU process of law-making etc is more democratically accountable.
Economics vs Soveriegnty.

The Economic uncertainty that will be caused by a Brexit vote to me is a Red Herring: if a recession is on the way it will come regardless and it's a case of will a Federally-run EU be able to cope better than a single country; personally i think the UK will cope not much worse on it's own compared to if it's part of one Economic bloc where a one-size-fits-all model is the main order of operation; one which to me is difficult to operate in the long-term given the different histories, culture, languages, demographics, economies etc etc. We struggle in the UK to manage the Economy to balance the North-South differences; how does a big Economic bloc reconcile the Economic variances between agriculture-led parts of say Spain and remote regions of Poland perhaps based on heavy industry?

 

[Grays_1890]

Questions I heard today which I found interesting.

- Is the fact that immigration has such an impact on our economy proof that its a problem?

- If you was pro immigration and had control on borders at what number would be enough for you to make a call to stop it? is there a difference doing that than someone like Farage saying that now is the time?

ON a separate subject, that shooting in Orlando is a sorry state, if it is terrorism then the numbers keep increasing on their death toll list

 

[glorygloryeze]

I don't know who else has opt-outs, but I don't see what difference that makes. Most countries in the EU are in the Euro and are part of Schengen, we are not. If we leave the EU, then we are no longer part of the single market, which seems to me to be the big advantage of being part of the club.

A lot of this is just plain Politics though; last week i met a guy who travels a lot in his job (advertising) and recently met people in his role who worked closely with the EU. He said apparently we as a country have been missing many air quality targets and are due some fairly hefty fines from the EU because of this, but the issuing of these fines have been postponed/waived due to the worry of how it will effect the referendum vote. Basically, Brussels is scared of what the UK will vote and want to keep the UK as part of the Economic Union.
I would say, they (the EU) have as much to lose if the UK leave as the UK does. After all, if Italy, Spain or Greece were discussing leaving the EU would there as many comments by the number of key EU leaders as we have seen? I very much doubt it...

 

[parklane1]

A lot of this is just plain Politics though; last week i met a guy who travels a lot in his job (advertising) and recently met people in his role who worked closely with the EU. He said apparently we as a country have been missing many air quality targets and are due some fairly hefty fines from the EU because of this, but the issuing of these fines have been postponed/waived due to the worry of how it will effect the referendum vote. Basically, Brussels is scared of what the UK will vote and want to keep the UK as part of the Economic Union.
I would say, they (the EU) have as much to lose if the UK leave as the UK does. After all, if Italy, Spain or Greece were discussing leaving the EU would there as many comments by the number of key EU leaders as we have seen? I very much doubt it...

Good point and i agree, i think over the next decade or so there will be a few more major countries discussing whether to leave the EU or not ( especially if/when we do). Its a busted flush.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think in the end, the whole EU debate comes down to whether you are confident in the UK Government running the country's Economy for the medium to long-term vs how confident your are that the EU can run the Economy EU-wide and whether the EU process of law-making etc is more democratically accountable.
Economics vs Soveriegnty.

The Economic uncertainty that will be caused by a Brexit vote to me is a Red Herring: if a recession is on the way it will come regardless and it's a case of will a Federally-run EU be able to cope better than a single country; personally i think the UK will cope not much worse on it's own compared to if it's part of one Economic bloc where a one-size-fits-all model is the main order of operation; one which to me is difficult to operate in the long-term given the different histories, culture, languages, demographics, economies etc etc. We struggle in the UK to manage the Economy to balance the North-South differences; how does a big Economic bloc reconcile the Economic variances between agriculture-led parts of say Spain and remote regions of Poland perhaps based on heavy industry?

If we were in the single currency this would be fair comment. But we set interests rates in the UK. We invest, we stimulate innovation, we are in control of education and taxes and tax breaks. The EU doesn't run our economy. That's a misnomer.

Europe will never be like the US - federal - as it has distinct countries and cultures. But as a trading group, Europe is very much stronger. Financially, and in trade it can compete with the US and in the future with China.

 

[glorygloryeze]

If we were in the single currency this would be fair comment. But we set interests rates in the UK. We invest, we stimulate innovation, we are in control of education and taxes and tax breaks. The EU doesn't run our economy. That's a misnomer.

As it should be; therefore no big deal regarding a Brexit vote then, right?

Europe will never be like the US - federal - as it has distinct countries and cultures. But as a trading group, Europe is very much stronger. Financially, and in trade it can compete with the US and in the future with China.

If you had said that financially and in trade the EU can compete with other 'trading blocs' such as NAFTA, ASEAN etc then at that point that's probably fair enough. However you mention USA and China as the competition and yet these are not 'trading blocs' but individual countries with distinct cultures and distinct soveriegnty. If the EU is to become Economic/trading federation to compete against those two individual countries as an example (and not NAFTA, ASEAN etc) then it by default has to act like a Sovereign individual state, setting Trading rules, tarrifs across the federation. This requires a unified 'Federal' government to implement (as it does in the USA) given the different countries and Economies throughout the European 'Federation'.

It's the 'Federal Government' aspect that many Brexiters fear, and not without good reason imo. After all, many of the EU top brass have stated publicly in recent years that their goals were Economic Union followed by a Political Union.
Regardless of the issues of Democracy the UK has (unelected House of Lords, the Monarchy!) it is at least within our borders and thus can be identified and dealt with (if the desire is REALLY there to do so). But issues related to the EU/Brussels are much more remote to deal with democratically by the very nature that they are Federal and beyond the UK's borders (and more complicated as they involve several other nations who by their nature will not have the interests close to the UK's heart,close to theirs).

 

[scaramanga]

I thought that it was some national governments that wanted it to be re(named)framed rather than the Commission.

You mean Germany and France? That pretty much is the EU

 

[Grays_1890]

I think the EU vote is a pretty simple pick.

People say its a leap into the unknown but to some extent its not because we have been in the EU for a long time now, so we know exactly what its like to be IN. Therefore people are making a pretty informed decision if they vote OUT based on not enjoying life at the minute whilst being in the EU, very simplistic way of looking at it but also very true.