EU Referendum - In/Out?

[Serebii]

We need a common extra-terrestrial enemy so that we can all unite together as the human race because this bullshit is ridiculous.

 

We're all human. Doesn't matter where you're from or how much melanin you have, we're all the same deep down and should unite based on what's the same, not what is different.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

We need a common extra-terrestrial enemy so that we can all unite together as the human race because this bullshit is ridiculous.

 

We're all human. Doesn't matter where you're from or how much melanin you have, we're all the same deep down and should unite based on what's the same, not what is different.

 

Even if that happened I have little faith that humans won't find other reasons to discriminate amongst themselves.

 

Someone said here they don't believe anyone isn't a little bit racist... That's the sort of mentality that condones racism as a fact of life - which I can never agree it is.

 

Racism is largely the result of fear, fears I feel stem from cowardice and the inability to want to confront these fears - choosing instead to opt into the easier choice of a 'us against them' mentality.

[arab_freak]

As someone who's developed a deep interest in this issue all of a sudden I have two questions:

 

1.Has anyone on this forum who is also a minority faced any discrimination before and/or after the vote? I'll admit I haven't read the entire thread though--just the previous page. But I'd love to know any details.

2. What do you make of this:

 

[Pestneb]

1. Define a minority.... regardless if you mean being discriminated due to your heritage, sure, on one occasion, I think about 4 years ago.

 

2. I agree, I didn't dwell on it that much, but I was discussing it with someone just yesterday, about Boris becoming PM, I think it's a bad place for him, the next pm has a super challenging position to hold. And yes, Boris clearly had ambitions for the leadership role, now his carefully planned path is perilous.

 

The one hope I see for them is that meaningful reforms take place (a few leaders in the EU have alluded to that) in which case they may be able to to do a new referendum

1. invoke article 50

or

2. continue working towards a reformed EU.

 

 

They have heard the majority have no interest in the EU as it was - but they've changed now... so do we want to pack it all in, or do we want to work with our partners to iron out these issues...

 

 

I know for myself I did hesitate, my pencil hovered over both boxes, if a third had been present (reformed EU) I wouldn't have hesitated. Problem is that the reformed EU option wasn't there, because the top dogs in the EU said there was no further reform available.

 

Anyway... I hope that is the outcome, that the EU is able to make a move to address the most addressable issues so that we can make a considered decision. As the referendum stands, what did leave mean? remain meant something, but the possibilities were too broad for leave. I think it would be fair to have another referendum setting out options to decide what exactly leave means...

[Blade]

Article 50 will not be triggered. It doesn't make sense to do so when it is now clear there is no Brexit plan. The Government was reckless for not devising a plan that will pull us out of the EU in the event of a Leave vote. If Art 50 is invoked now then the UK will be taken outside of the EU in two years with the EU having all the cards.

 

The Leave case that was portrayed to the media namely the £350m claim and immigration is tearing apart. In fact it was never true. The fact is that the UK is unlikely to obtain a favourable trade deal from the EU without accepting free movement of peoples.

 

What I think is likely to happen is that a General Election will be called with parties campaigning on the issue of whether Art 50 should be invoked.

[EEVILMURRAY]

The other countries that are feeling a referendum need to get their skates on to show that they mean business

[Pestneb]

What I think is likely to happen is that a General Election will be called with parties campaigning on the issue of whether Art 50 should be invoked.

 

And this is where Labour's hope could have come from. if they do or not will show their competency.

 

If Labour make it it a part of their manifesto to annul the referendum decision, that only a win for labour can do this

 

1)they can win the scottish voters who want to be in the UK AND the EU, and in doing so re-establish themselves in scotland

 

2)they can win back lost voters from ukip, maybe gain some from conservatives.

 

3)win the general election.

 

Of course that would require very clever political manoeuvring to pull off in that way and is quite unlikely, but it would be something Johnson or whoever takes over from Cameron could NOT do. They'd need to offer remain voters the opportunity to remain, and at the same time the leave voters the opportunity to have meaningful changes take place from within the EU.

 

Having said that, I don't know that Corbyn is capable of that (and whether the external factors would allow him) and now the labour party seems to be imploding in the short term I imagine most of that hope is all but gone....

 

 

 

Oh and in regards to the poisoned chalice.. I think it's VERY telling that as yet we have no confirmed names in the hat. Johnson WANTED the chalice, but not so much since he saw Cameron pop that unknown pill in :P The best I can imagine for the conservatives would be if a scape goat takes the negotiation bullet, then steps aside for a successor to deal with the mess afterwards. However it is a question of who the scapegoat would be. Will be interesting to watch but I imagine the conservative party has been hurt badly by cameron (because imo it isn't just going to be the individual politicians who will be wounded long term but also the party)

 

The other countries that are feeling a referendum need to get their skates on to show that they mean business

 

Personally my ideal scenario would be this, and that the EU would then be radically reformed.

 

To make a comparison to relationships, if I dated someone who told me what hobbies to enjoy, what clothes to wear, what food I was allowed to eat, what exercise I was to do, when I could go to bed and when I could wake up, like I was inferior to them and simply there to please them... I would stop dating them.

 

I feel the EU really needs to step away, be more confident in itself and let the member states be themselves.

 

back to the referendum and relationship analogy... I guess the choice was like being in an abusive relationship with a partner you are living with, and choosing to move out, even though you know finding money for rent, food, maybe looking out for the kids will be tougher. It's about having respect for yourself and not just staying with an abusive partner, comforting yourself that they do love you really,deep down somewhere, they can change, things can be better etc... that rarely if ever happens.

I'm not sure if EU reform is even possible... I think a new bloc would be a better move. The fact that eurosceptism has spread so much in the EU, to me says it isn't just a case of "little britainism" but a case of overbearing rule from the EU. serious reforms are needed, and prior to the referendum it was made clear by the EU that the problem was the UK, the EU was faultless and we as a naton had to shut up, learn our (low) place and put up with it all.

 

This vote is a vote of self respect from the UK (even for Europe itself, which despite EU rhetoric isn't synonymous with the EU), and I think if a few other nations followed us, and we set up a new system of economic cooperation, with a council made up of the prime ministers/presidents of the countries (really, do we NEED to have that whole other layer of political entities present with the current EU?) just discussing what things would be mutually beneficial for us all, and approaching those as a bloc, while allowing for individualism of each unique nation...

[sumo73]

I think Article 50 will be invoked but it won't be started until some of the mess we are in starts to calm down and the markets start to remain more stable.

 

Although there are lots of voices from the Remain side who are understandably angry and upset with what happened last week we do need to move on as a country. This mess won't be sorted out just by those who wanted to leave.

 

Regards to the current Labour leader he was never really pro EU to begin with but the rest of the Labour party having been sold the pro EU message by Tony Blair that it was a system without fault did. The Labour leader had to represent the views of his party and he went down a slightly different line to stay in the EU but with reform and not just accept the status quo. However had the party been less pro EU, I believe that Jeremy Corbyn could have campaigned for that and it would have shown a different message that wasn't based on immigration and inward lookingness that others complain about. I believe that now is not the time for the Labour party which are facing some bad waters to boot off it's captain into the sea and then get someone from the engine room to take over.

 

Regarding the EU, we will not turn our backs on Europe but they need to take some time to reflect on themselves. Were we responsible in any way for this? Could we have done more to show people (not just politicians) that the EU was there to benefit not just big business but all the people across the UK. It would have been nice for someone big in Europe to come over to the UK and stated their case. But EU reform (not just tokenism) is just not possible. It is a system that is stubborn to reform unless it gets a shock to the system. Well it just got it's shock.

 

If Article 50 is not invoked (I seriously doubt it) then do you expect everything to return back to normal. Do you expect people who voted to leave will just accept this. We are in interesting times right now we need to pull together as the United Kingdom so that everyone can live a peaceful life.

 

Oh and in regards to ethnic minorities having abuse at them. My girlfriend is a former refugee to this country and went to a party with her extended family at the weekend. Most of them voted to stay although some voted out and none of them have experienced any form of racism about this result. Hardly a scientific test but that's the only thing I know.

 

Sadly I will add there are several EU states that have no want to leave the EU where racism is on the rise and I would encourage the EU to get it's act together and stop this. Just as the UK needs to, the EU must show leadership.

Edited June 27, 2016 by sumo73

[Serebii]

I really am starting to think that Parliament is going to "overturn" (for lack of a better term, since it wasn't legally binding) the referendum.

 

The country is in turmoil. Almost half didn't vote to leave, many who did are starting to regret it. The political parties are imploding. The UK is fracturing. The markets are mental. Banks are crashing. The pound is the weakest it has been for decades.

 

They can't ignore these things. Just because a slim majority voted to leave on a non-binding referendum does not mean they have to do it and it'd be negligent to just ignore the millions of people who don't want it. They need to find a compromise, something to make everyone happy.

 

We're not in a country of direct democracy, and to leave this decision solely to direct democracy when both the campaigns just outright lied to the public is just horrific.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Serebii

[sumo73]

I really am starting to think that Parliament is going to "overturn" (for lack of a better term, since it wasn't legally binding) the referendum.

 

The country is in turmoil. Almost half didn't vote to leave, many who did are starting to regret it. The political parties are imploding. The UK is fracturing. The markets are mental. Banks are crashing. The pound is the weakest it has been for decades.

 

They can't ignore these things. Just because a slim majority voted to leave on a non-binding referendum does not mean they have to do it and it'd be negligent to just ignore the millions of people who don't want it. They need to find a compromise, something to make everyone happy.

 

We're not in a country of direct democracy, and to leave this decision solely to direct democracy when both the campaigns just outright lied to the public is just horrific.

 

 

We are moving to the point of no return right now. Yes this referendum could be ignored but at what cost? Do you think 52% of the population would just say oh ok have another vote the last one was just a dry run. What happens if we have another vote and it's the same result or a near opposite result. Imagine if last weeks result was with 48% voting to leave you would still have a lot of unhappy people.

 

I agree both campaigns lied with big business and the media playing their dirty part in all of this. (I include the BBC in this)

 

We need to move on together or we are all screwed, simple as that.

Edited June 27, 2016 by sumo73
missed out a full stop in a sentence.

[Pestneb]

We are moving to the point of no return right now. Yes this referendum could be ignored but at what cost? Do you think 52% of the population would just say oh ok have another vote the last one was just a dry run. What happens if we have another vote and it's the same result or a near opposite result. Imagine if last weeks result was with 48% voting to leave you would still have a lot of unhappy people.

 

I agree both campaigns lied with big business and the media playing their dirty part in all of this. (I include the BBC in this)

 

We need to move on together or we are all screwed, simple as that.

 

Well look at the Lisbon treaty which sets a clear precedent for ignoring the population when they get in the way of the EU. Initially French and Dutch voters rejected it, so the EU reworded the EU constitution into the lisbon treaty. Then the Irish rejected that. Fed up of writing, the EU gave the Irish a chance to get the vote right a second time, a year later.

 

The margin with the Irish referendum was in fact more decisive than our own referendum, albeit with a significantly lower turnout.

The second referendum had a slightly better turnout and went from about 50:50 split with against edging it in the first referendum, to a 2:1 pro treaty vote.

 

[The Lisbon Treaty] will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats

 

In regards to the poisoned chalice... it looks like Johnson is getting into position to negotiate

[Johnson] denied that the Leave vote had been mainly driven by immigration, saying restoring control of British democracy was "the main issue".

 

So the £350m or whatever will still go to the EU, we will still be in the single market and have free movement. Just we will have our own democracy.

 

I think if the leave campaign had been open about that from the start the remain campaign may just have won rather convincingly...

 

[Johnson] said there would still be "intense" cooperation between the UK and the EU on arts, science and the environment and said Britons would still be able to travel and work in Europe.

 

Michael Fuchs, who is vice chair of German Chancellor Angela's Merkel's CDU party, said it would not be possible for the UK to retain access to the single market without free movement.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Pestneb
Automerged Doublepost

[Jonnas]

To make a comparison to relationships, if I dated someone who told me what hobbies to enjoy, what clothes to wear, what food I was allowed to eat, what exercise I was to do, when I could go to bed and when I could wake up, like I was inferior to them and simply there to please them... I would stop dating them.

 

I feel the EU really needs to step away, be more confident in itself and let the member states be themselves.

 

I guess the choice was like being in an abusive relationship with a partner you are living with

 

This is a bad analogy. The EU isn't another nation, it's several. Those decisions were taken as a group, in which the UK actually had a good say.

 

As for "letting the member states be themselves", I'm pretty sure the UK already had the most privileges of the union: you get to keep your currency and you opted out of Schengen. If the UK leaves and rejoins, it can't keep those perks.

 

Out of curiosity, which EU-based laws are, in your own words, "abusive"?

 

(EDIT: I see you mentioned the Lisbon Treaty, but I'm unsure if you're against its content, or just the process that passed it)

 

Personally my ideal scenario would be this, and that the EU would then be radically reformed.

 

See, I'm all for reforming much of the EU's establishment, but that initiative has to come from its members. You can't reform that which you aren't part of, and the UK has essentially lost the voice it had in promoting any potential changes.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Jonnas

[sumo73]

 

In regards to the poisoned chalice... it looks like Johnson is getting into position to negotiate

 

So the £350m or whatever will still go to the EU, we will still be in the single market and have free movement. Just we will have our own democracy.

 

I think if the leave campaign had been open about that from the start the remain campaign may just have won rather convincingly...

 

As I said before if Jeremy Corbyn (the current Labour party leader) had been allowed to campaign on what he truly felt about the EU, what he historically thought about the EU, the Leave campaign would have won on based more on facts rather than immigration and inward looking views.

 

People of the EU need to ask people who rule the EU these questions -

What power do you have?

Where did you get it from?

In whose interests do you exercise it?

To whom are you accountable?

How can we get rid of you?

Edited June 27, 2016 by sumo73

[Pestneb]

This is a bad analogy. The EU isn't another nation, it's several. Those decisions were taken as a group, in which the UK actually had a good say.

 

As for "letting the member states be themselves", I'm pretty sure the UK already had the most privileges of the union: you get to keep your currency and you opted out of Schengen. If the UK leaves and rejoins, it can't keep those perks.

 

Out of curiosity, which EU-based laws are, in your own words, "abusive"?

 

(EDIT: I see you mentioned the Lisbon Treaty, but I'm unsure if you're against its content, or just the process that passed it)

 

 

is it also a bad analogy because the UK and EU aren't two individual humans who have entered into a relationship together....?

 

My point is the balance of power in the relationship. The lisbon treaty shifted power away from individual nations to a central EU powerhouse. It sounds ok in principle, but in action the EU, as it was/is going today logically requires the member states to surrender pretty much all their political decision making to the EU.

 

Take the euro as an example. In the financial crisis the biggest issue was that economies that needed a weak euro were tied to economies that needed a strong euro. So what happened? the strength of the euro was an average of all the involved economies. Look at greece, italy, spain even portugal.

 

Obviously there is no way of seeing how these economies would have fared outside of the euro zone, but the involved governments would have had tools available which would have allowed them a lot more flexibility in getting out of the fix they were in. The EU in many instances, most openly greece, enforced policy on a "sovereign" nation that was unwanted. My memory on this is vague, but I believe the EU also imposed an EU chosen head for Italy too, to enforce austerity measures there?

 

Now this is just the euro, but the migrant crisis shows an issue with the schengen area, I also think the current arrangements for freedom of movement make poorer countries relatively poorer while allowing the strongest countries to become stronger.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think free trade within the bloc is great, I also think that freedom of movement is fantastic. What I don't think is so great is the brain drain on poorer nations (emphasis on the "er") and added strain on richer nations welfare systems. I'm not talking about finance here at all, it is to do with population and infrastructure. A lot of this is due to a failure at national level, but also supranational level. The EU needs to decide if it is a trading bloc or a United States of Europe.

 

Personally I think the USE would be doomed to fail. In the US it worked because it was a young nation, there was no history, they were all immigrants (albeit taking over the natives country without asking) and that put in a level of equality. Try and add Mexico into the USA now though, and I think you would see issues, as both the US and Mexico have unique and distinct cultures. The states within the US have cultures that developed from within the framework of the US, to make that system work in europe the EU has to work to deconstruct national identities.. and it is that element, the deconstruction of national identity that made me draw a link to an abusive relationship.

 

Anyway, that is my point of view... tbh aside from the euro and lisbon treaty I'm actually someone who prefers a strong EU.. I just think those two things weaken its member states, and therefore ultimately weaken the EU.

 

Tbh I don't really think too much about the EU because it was always a fact of life for me, like the sky being blue. Also when I have tried to look up information I find it tends to be either "the EU is god" or "the EU is the devil" propaganda... so it's hard to look through the opinion and read the fact. But from what I have seen particularly in recent years suggests to me that the EU is becoming more of a politicians paradise than an organisation concerned with improving Europe for its citizens.

 

See, I'm all for reforming much of the EU's establishment, but that initiative has to come from its members. You can't reform that which you aren't part of, and the UK has essentially lost the voice it had in promoting any potential changes

 

Thing is, the president of the EU was interpreted as saying, more or less, "no more reform" the day before the referendum. So even as members he made it clear our voice didn't count. We can't lose something we already don't have.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-reform-uk-brexit-vote-live-remain-jean-claude-juncker-european-union-a7095601.html

 

“The British policymakers and British voters have to know that there will be not be any kind of renegotiation,” he said.

 

“We have concluded a deal with the Prime Minister, he got the maximum he could receive, we gave the maximum we could give. So there will be no kind of renegotiation, nor on the agreement we found in February, nor as far as any kind of treaty negotiations are concerned.”

 

Now the problem here is that a lot of voters would read that as the EU will remain as it is indefinitely, there is no scope for further reform, your voice is spent and you have all that it could buy for you... not the wisest of interventions. Unless the EU actually wanted the UK out

Edited June 27, 2016 by Pestneb

[sumo73]

I saw this from Larry Bundy Jr's twitter feed (twitter.com/LarryBundyJr) -

 

Larry Bundy Jr ‏@LarryBundyJr Jun 24

Calling the Leavers Racist, Stupid & Passive-aggressive bullying wasn't enough to persuade them to switch, Who'd have thunk? #notmyvote

 

Larry Bundy Jr ‏@LarryBundyJr Jun 24

If you want to be angry, be angry at the people who didn't vote and the d*ckheads who thought it was funny to tick both boxes #notmyvote

 

Some great logic about old people voting here - http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/eu-referendum-old-people-should-not-vote

[Pestneb]

I saw this from Larry Bundy Jr's twitter feed (twitter.com/LarryBundyJr) -

 

Larry Bundy Jr ‏@LarryBundyJr Jun 24

Calling the Leavers Racist, Stupid & Passive-aggressive bullying wasn't enough to persuade them to switch, Who'd have thunk? #notmyvote

 

Larry Bundy Jr ‏@LarryBundyJr Jun 24

If you want to be angry, be angry at the people who didn't vote and the d*ckheads who thought it was funny to tick both boxes #notmyvote

 

Some great logic about old people voting here - http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/eu-referendum-old-people-should-not-vote

 

hmm, yeah the old people ban idea, what a joke.

 

I mean, a 65 year old could well live a further 40 years of full life, while an 18 year old could be dead the next day.

 

People who don't earn above the threshold for the highest tax bands aren't affected either, so they (I guess I ought to say we) should also not be allowed to vote. Anyone who hasn't graduated from university isn't affected by tuition fees etc, so they shouldn't be able to vote. doctors should be the only ones allowed to vote because they are affected by decisions on the NHS. But only if they have actively served in the armed forces. Also they should have a good grasp on economics, so they should probably have worked in the financial sector for a minimum of 10 years in a reasonably high up position. Also they should know about education from a teachers point of view, so perhaps 5-10 years in a school. By the time they've got all the required information to make a considered vote, they'll probably be about 65 years old. So they shouldn't be able to vote because they'll be too old.

 

I wonder what happens at an election if nobody votes...

[Ashley]

We are moving to the point of no return right now. Yes this referendum could be ignored but at what cost? Do you think 52% of the population would just say oh ok have another vote the last one was just a dry run. What happens if we have another vote and it's the same result or a near opposite result. Imagine if last weeks result was with 48% voting to leave you would still have a lot of unhappy people.

 

I think if it happened again there had to be clear rules about what is needed (such as the 60% majority, 75% turnout suggested by that petition as an example) but then we obviously run into the possibility of a neverendum.

 

So the £350m or whatever will still go to the EU, we will still be in the single market and have free movement. Just we will have our own democracy.

 

Well, mostly... I read some suggestion that the EU could say when it comes to things like the trading of food we must ensure our environment/farming regulations need to match theirs otherwise we could end up having shitty practices but still benefiting in the same way as other members.

 

hmm, yeah the old people ban idea, what a joke.

 

I mean, a 65 year old could well live a further 40 years of full life, while an 18 year old could be dead the next day.

 

People who don't earn above the threshold for the highest tax bands aren't affected either, so they (I guess I ought to say we) should also not be allowed to vote. Anyone who hasn't graduated from university isn't affected by tuition fees etc, so they shouldn't be able to vote. doctors should be the only ones allowed to vote because they are affected by decisions on the NHS. But only if they have actively served in the armed forces. Also they should have a good grasp on economics, so they should probably have worked in the financial sector for a minimum of 10 years in a reasonably high up position. Also they should know about education from a teachers point of view, so perhaps 5-10 years in a school. By the time they've got all the required information to make a considered vote, they'll probably be about 65 years old. So they shouldn't be able to vote because they'll be too old.

 

I wonder what happens at an election if nobody votes...

 

Well the other idea is a weighted vote. Something like 18-24 is worth 1.5, 25-34 1.3, 35-45 1, 46-64 0.7 65+ 0.5 that kind of thing.

 

Doubt anyone would do that though!

 

Would be interesting though given the elderly were mostly Leave if they might have changed given the impact its had on pensions.

 

And was it here I saw someone did an analysis that claimed based on the average rate of mortality in the elderly and the number of people turning 18 in the same time frame, assuming the age bands would still vote in the same proportion as they did by the time we left the EU the majority would prefer Remain.

[sumo73]

Well the other idea is a weighted vote. Something like 18-24 is worth 1.5, 25-34 1.3, 35-45 1, 46-64 0.7 65+ 0.5 that kind of thing.

 

Doubt anyone would do that though!

 

Would be interesting though given the elderly were mostly Leave if they might have changed given the impact its had on pensions.

 

And was it here I saw someone did an analysis that claimed based on the average rate of mortality in the elderly and the number of people turning 18 in the same time frame, assuming the age bands would still vote in the same proportion as they did by the time we left the EU the majority would prefer Remain.

 

Let me make this clear unless you are talking about block voting normally in a democracy -

one person=one vote. All votes are equal, it's that simple.

[Pestneb]

I don't see the weighted vote being coherent at all.

I think there is too much of a tendency to dismiss the contribution older people have to society... I assumed that article was a joke but maybe not?

 

I personally never lived outside of the EU. I have no idea what it was like, what was better, what was worse. So actually I see greater value in saying anyone younger than 65 has their vote count as 0.5, anyone younger than 45 have it count as 0.25

 

So maybe the one vote one person actually does that well - extra voting power for the older voter with experience from the past and informed decisions, also extra voting power for the young for consequences of the out come..

 

And who knows, maybe it was all those old people trying to protect their pensions who were the majority in the remain camp - I find it funny how people still take polls seriously - because we all know that the conservatives don't have a majority government and that scotland voted to leave the UK, just as the polls predicted, so naturally the polls should be trusted when they discuss the composition of those majorities they told us about with such certainty! :P

 

I do think those who no longer make decisions for themselves shouldn't be able to vote - is that not already the case though? or can a carer with power of attorney (or whatever it would be called) get a double vote??

Edited June 27, 2016 by Pestneb

[Ashley]

Oh no I wasn't saying I feel that it should be done, but its a way.

 

Is there not an argument to be said though that while the older generation will be able to remember pre-EU they also are less likely to be in touch with the world as it is now (due to reduced travel, cultural awareness etc)? Plus you need to question misinformation effect, rosy retrospective, fading affect bias etc.

 

I mean, you can argue anything. It's how academia keeps going.

 

The Brexit leader, who is the favourite to succeed David Cameron as prime minister, claimed that Britain would remain a member of the EU’s single market while introducing a points-based immigration system to limit the right of EU citizens to work in Britain.

 

British people would still be able to live, travel, study and buy homes on the continent but the same rights would not be automatically extended to EU citizens in the UK, he wrote. Britain would also be freed from sending “a substantial sum of money” to the EU budget, which he said “could” be used for the NHS.

 

Is this guy on this fucking planet? What makes him think that would be okay (other than wishful thinking)?

[Serebii]

Thing is, to remain in the single market, or the EEA, we'd need to essentially give the same contribution to the EU as we do now and allow immigration. The difference is that we will get fuck all back

[Ashley]

Thing is, to remain in the single market, or the EEA, we'd need to essentially give the same contribution to the EU as we do now and allow immigration. The difference is that we will get fuck all back

 

Yeah that's what some of us have said all along

 

The only way to make real change is to have left completely and start again. Leaving but still wanting the single market comes with the same free movement and same costs, except we don't get to have any say in it. It was the most baffling part of it all. I genuinely didn't see any benefit in that scenario (and could never really find an explanation of another by the campaign).

Edited June 27, 2016 by Ashley

[sumo73]

No one remember this but the UK used to be part of ETFA before joining the EEC (the precursor to the EU) back in 1973.

 

This is interesting-

 

http://icelandreview.com/news/2016/06/27/efta-plans-cooperation-uk

[Jonnas]

Originally Posted by Pestneb

is it also a bad analogy because the UK and EU aren't two individual humans who have entered into a relationship together....?

 

My point is the balance of power in the relationship. The lisbon treaty shifted power away from individual nations to a central EU powerhouse. It sounds ok in principle, but in action the EU, as it was/is going today logically requires the member states to surrender pretty much all their political decision making to the EU.

 

No, it's because the relationship is between 28 members, not two. What one expects in a relationship involving two entities is far different from what one would expect in a business meeting with 28 agendas.

 

A better analogy is 28 co-workers in an office, and everybody bickers with one another. The existence of economies and GDP make this analogy imperfect, as it means that some countries (France, Germany, potentially UK) carry more weight than others.

 

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

Take the euro as an example. In the financial crisis the biggest issue was that economies that needed a weak euro were tied to economies that needed a strong euro. So what happened? the strength of the euro was an average of all the involved economies. Look at greece, italy, spain even portugal.

 

Obviously there is no way of seeing how these economies would have fared outside of the euro zone, but the involved governments would have had tools available which would have allowed them a lot more flexibility in getting out of the fix they were in. The EU in many instances, most openly greece, enforced policy on a "sovereign" nation that was unwanted. My memory on this is vague, but I believe the EU also imposed an EU chosen head for Italy too, to enforce austerity measures there?

 

I don't think the EU chose any president or minister upon any country (not to my knowledge, anyway). They may have assigned advisors, or Troika representatives, but not a figurehead. You might've seen Euro-friendly leaders being elected (Portugal, for example, had an Euro-friendly government until 6 months ago), but they're still elected.

 

I'd argue that those economic problems have more to do with the fact that, ultimately, the eurozone seems to depend on the goodwill of lenders like Germany and France (and the UK, if they bothered to show up more in these negotiations). The unwanted policies you're talking about came more from Germany and the European Central Bank (which is based in Frankfurt) as part of the loan, rather than stuff the European Comission came up with.

 

The EC isn't as strong as you're implying, here. To me, that's precisely the problem. What should be the strongest entity in the Union shouldn't be afraid to sanction France, but that's where we are.

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

Now this is just the euro, but the migrant crisis shows an issue with the schengen area, I also think the current arrangements for freedom of movement make poorer countries relatively poorer while allowing the strongest countries to become stronger.

 

Not really. Refugees have been showing up in Greece, Italy and Spain for a long time, and they'll keep showing up, Schengen or not. If anything, Schengen allowed those countries to redistribute the refugees in a more efficient manner, which is certainly a boon.

 

Blunders made during that crisis include Angela Merkel promising to welcome refugees (thus causing an excess of people to flock there), a bunch of EU members refusing to take them in (Poland, Hungary, and to a lesser extent, France, are examples) and a morally dubious deal (lead by Greece and Germany) with Turkey to stifle refugees coming from there.

 

Once again, most of these decisions were made by countries bickering among themselves. I don't know how you reached the conclusion that strong countries got stronger, we simply saw Merkel doing more about the crisis than Juncker.

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

The EU needs to decide if it is a trading bloc or a United States of Europe.

 

Personally I think the USE would be doomed to fail. In the US it worked because it was a young nation, there was no history, they were all immigrants (albeit taking over the natives country without asking) and that put in a level of equality. Try and add Mexico into the USA now though, and I think you would see issues, as both the US and Mexico have unique and distinct cultures. The states within the US have cultures that developed from within the framework of the US, to make that system work in europe the EU has to work to deconstruct national identities.. and it is that element, the deconstruction of national identity that made me draw a link to an abusive relationship.

 

I agree with that first sentence. At the very least, we need stronger, neutral entities that regulate the trade bloc properly, instead of the exploitable half-measure we have now.

 

The second paragraph is a more complex issue outside of the scope of the thread (we could argue all day about what counts as "culture erasure", for example), but I think an "USE" could certainly be possible. It would just be a far different process than what the USA went through.

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

Anyway, that is my point of view... tbh aside from the euro and lisbon treaty I'm actually someone who prefers a strong EU.. I just think those two things weaken its member states, and therefore ultimately weaken the EU.

 

I think the Euro just needs better management. I can't trust the ECB to make impartial decisions.

 

I still don't know which part of the Lisbon Treaty bothers you, specifically. Just the process that passed it, then?

 

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

Tbh I don't really think too much about the EU because it was always a fact of life for me, like the sky being blue. Also when I have tried to look up information I find it tends to be either "the EU is god" or "the EU is the devil" propaganda... so it's hard to look through the opinion and read the fact. But from what I have seen particularly in recent years suggests to me that the EU is becoming more of a politicians paradise than an organisation concerned with improving Europe for its citizens.

 

Yeah, I noticed you referred to Juncker as "EU President" when he's the president of the commission. He's a legislator more than anything, and doesn't have the power you'd expect the President to have (most of Europe thinks of Angela Merkel as the de facto European leader, anyway).

 

[ramble]

Though if Europe as a whole elected that position, it's entirely possible it would be more important than it is now, simply because people expected it to be (politics are funny that way), but I'm just speculating.

[/ramble]

 

Originally Posted by Pestneb

Thing is, the president of the EU was interpreted as saying, more or less, "no more reform" the day before the referendum. So even as members he made it clear our voice didn't count. We can't lose something we already don't have.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7095601.html

 

Now the problem here is that a lot of voters would read that as the EU will remain as it is indefinitely, there is no scope for further reform, your voice is spent and you have all that it could buy for you... not the wisest of interventions. Unless the EU actually wanted the UK out

 

From the sound of that article, Juncker said "No reform will come from the threat of a Leave vote". In other words, if you want reform, you won't get it via blackmail. Which is the only acceptable answer he could give, honestly.

 

But despite Mr Juncker’s comments apparently focusing on what would happen in the event of a Leave vote, Boris Johnson claimed that the EC President had made clear that any attempt to change immigration rules from within would be a “sham, snare and delusion”.

 

Man, Boris Johnson is an arsehole. That's literally the opposite of what Juncker said!

[Raining_again]

All I can say is that putting up border control between the north and south is going to be fun (considering the northern irish didn't even *want* to leave)

 

Yaaaaay.