Should We Leave the EU?

[zuriblue]

Nope. One country can block another acceding to the EU. The French did it to us in the 1960s. It was also an argument used during the Scottish Independence Referendum in relation to whether or not Spain would vote against Scotland acceding to the EU to send a message to Catalonia.

So if the UK Government decides it doesn't want Turkey joining the UK Government can block Turkey from joining.

Additionally Turkey would need yes votes from Greece and Cyprus. Good luck with that one.

Also Turkey needs to satisfy around 40 criteria to be eligible. So far it is satisfying one.

The talk of 80 million Turks using FMOP to come to the UK after Turkish accession to the EU is just scaremongering. Except I thought that only the Remain side scaremonger.

 

[radamfi]

Can anyone explain the thinking behind today's bold faced lie from brexit that the EU can enlarge without agreement from every eu member government?

I can only assumed that Penny genuinely didn't know as deliberately lying wouldn't make sense as Cameron easily debunked it, making her look foolish.

 

[miami]

I can only assumed that Penny genuinely didn't know as deliberately lying wouldn't make sense as Cameron easily debunked it, making her look foolish.

Perhaps it's a conspiracy? I know the leavers like conspiracy - the express was on about "chemtrails" yesterday.

Worrying that government ministers can't do basic fact checking.

Trouble is, many in the leave side will believe her. The BBC, hot off ifs anti-Eu paxman interview had a headline stating her lies as a fact, hidden behind magic quote marks of course.

In the mean time leavers I know want to leave because our borders are too weak because of all these people in Calais that can't get into the uk. They also have no problem with people who come here and work and pay taxes, they just don't like it that refugees flood into the country and get given enourmlus houses and £3000 a week to spend on booze at tesco.

It's depressing, it really is.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can only assumed that Penny genuinely didn't know as deliberately lying wouldn't make sense as Cameron easily debunked it, making her look foolish.

Even with Cameron easily debunking her, the media will report her remarks, and a fair proportion of those who hear it will choose to believe her over David Cameron. So, even if she knew that what she was saying was false, she might have calculated that there is an advantage in saying it. I actually find it hard to conceive that she would not know something like that - for a politician and Government minister campaigning on the issue of Europe, she'd have to be extraordinarily badly informed not to know.

I think incidentally one problem with the BBC reporting is that they seem to interpret their requirement to be impartial as meaning they should give equal coverage (and equal plausibility) to what both sides are saying - and I get the impression that they seem to do that religiously, even if - as in this case, what one side is saying is patently false and would therefore probably be called out and dismissed by any media organization seriously concerned with accuracy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For scaremongering about Turkey joining, this is pretty appalling: http://action.voteleavetakecontrol.org/immigration

Displayed prominently at the top of the page: "Turkey joining the EU means even more stress on our country!" - as if Turkey is definitely about to join (whereas we know that in reality there is almost no chance of Turkey joining in the next few years). Below that is a reminder that the population of Turkey is 76 million. (So what? Do they imagine the entire country will move to the UK?). The rest of the page is basically scaremongering about number of migrants and the impact on the health service - but the page conveniently provides no source for its estimate of 5.23M population increase, and conveniently forgets to acknowledge that many migrants will actually work for the NHS!

 

[NSEFAN]

I am fed up of the "this might happen" comments. I want to know "this will happen".
At the moment there is still insufficient facts available to vote.

The problem is that nobody knows what will happen. With a vote to remain, the status quo can continue, providing a reasonably good idea as to what will happen. With a vote to leave, the outcome will vary depending entirely upon how good we are at negotiating. There is also the simultaneous problem of a power struggle within the Conservative party, with certain people deliberately making comments in order to get support for themselves as well as their team in the referendum. I suppose that we have to consider if we trust any of the current candidates to get a good deal for the UK in the event of a Brexit. I'm not sure that I do...

 

[Barn]

Cameron now:

"[Turkey's accession] is not remotely on the cards... they are on course to join in the year 3000"

Cameron pre-referendum:

 

[EM2]

I don't see a contradiction. Turkey is 'on course to join in the year 3000' because they aren't '...meet[ing] the necessary standards'.
If they sorted themselves out, and did meet the standards quicker, they could join sooner.

 

[miami]

So if Turkey meet the required standards (and they're moving in the wrong direction), the UK government will agree to Turkey joining. British Sovereignty at work.

As to whether Greece are going to allow it, that'll be the day. And as for Cyprus? Turkey is an occupying power in Cyprus, something tells me they won't be ratifying a Turkish entry easily.

 

[northwichcat]

To quote a FT journalist - Turkey are making progress to join the EU in the same way I'm making progress towards being a millionaire. I'm making progress to something I'm unlikely to ever achieve.

 

[Barn]

President Erdogan won't last forever, and almost certainly not as long as the decades before our next referendum.

To be clear, my concern about a potential Turkish accession isn't due to the colour of their skin or their geographical location or their predominant religion. It is due to the vast difference in economic terms between that country and western Europe.

 

[Muttley]

Oh come now, if Call Me Dave says no,it means no. It's not like he's ever u-turned before. The EU would never let anyone join who was so far off the mark and didn't meet the financial criteria. (It'd be really useful if you all could forget about Greece right now, thank you.)

You Remainers crack me up, you're turkeys and its coming up to mid-December, time to wake up and realize you're being lied to. Come the 24th we'll all be as irrelevant as voters without an election ever are.

Vote out first time and see if the sweetener they offer you is good enough.

 

[miami]

President Erdogan won't last forever, and almost certainly not as long as the decades before our next referendum.

To be clear, my concern about a potential Turkish accession isn't due to the colour of their skin or their geographical location or their predominant religion. It is due to the vast difference in economic terms between that country and western Europe.

Turkey can not join the EU without the agreement of the UK, Greece, Cyprus, France, Spain, and 23 other existing EU countries, as well as the EU Parliament.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh come now, if Call Me Dave says no,it means no. It's not like he's ever u-turned before. The EU would never let anyone join who was so far off the mark and didn't meet the financial criteria. (It'd be really useful if you all could forget about Greece right now, thank you.)

You Remainers crack me up, you're turkeys and its coming up to mid-December, time to wake up and realize you're being lied to. Come the 24th we'll all be as irrelevant as voters without an election ever are.

Vote out first time and see if the sweetener they offer you is good enough.

So your claim is that the westminster government is not democratic and does not represent the will of the country?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Additionally Turkey would need yes votes from Greece and Cyprus. Good luck with that one.

Also Turkey needs to satisfy around 40 criteria to be eligible. So far it is satisfying one.

The talk of 80 million Turks using FMOP to come to the UK after Turkish accession to the EU is just scaremongering. Except I thought that only the Remain side scaremonger.

Exactly. Especially given the Northern Cyprus problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh come now, if Call Me Dave says no,it means no. It's not like he's ever u-turned before. The EU would never let anyone join who was so far off the mark and didn't meet the financial criteria. (It'd be really useful if you all could forget about Greece right now, thank you.)

You Remainers crack me up, you're turkeys and its coming up to mid-December, time to wake up and realize you're being lied to. Come the 24th we'll all be as irrelevant as voters without an election ever are.

Vote out first time and see if the sweetener they offer you is good enough.

Yeah, this is a pretty rubbish argument for democracy if you're arguing that our own government is corrupt.

I'm less and less convinced that Brexiters actually care about democracy, because there are so many contradictions in the claims they make about it. It seems to mostly be "I don't like the EU because it does things I don't like" rather than anything to do with the actual way its constituted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

President Erdogan won't last forever, and almost certainly not as long as the decades before our next referendum.

To be clear, my concern about a potential Turkish accession isn't due to the colour of their skin or their geographical location or their predominant religion. It is due to the vast difference in economic terms between that country and western Europe.

Considering it's growing extremely fast, you should have no problem at all in a couple of decades then.

 

[Barn]

It seems to mostly be "I don't like the EU because it does things I don't like" rather than anything to do with the actual way its constituted.

What's wrong with not liking something because of what it does?

 

[TheKnightWho]

What's wrong with not liking something because of what it does?

It's the honesty of the situation. Claiming it's because it's undemocratic when really it's about what it actually does is quite disingenuous.

I have see it in myself with the recent NUS scandal: I want my university to withdraw, and have claimed it on democratic grounds. When I had a think about it, the real reason was to send a message that antisemitism is not tolerable by someone who is supposed to represent all students - the democracy element is not really getting to the heart of the issue. It's usually because we think that our opinion is the majority, and so whatever offending element would be booted out if only we were more able to express ourselves democratically - even though this is often not true.

It's no surprise that those who generally support what the EU does don't see a democratic problem, whereas those who don't think it's an authoritarian dictatorship (at the extreme end of opposition).

 

[EM2]

I seem to remember asking this in another thread, but:
If the UK votes to leave the EU, what will you, at a personal level, be able to do, that you cannot do now?

 

[northwichcat]

I seem to remember asking this in another thread, but:
If the UK votes to leave the EU, what will you, at a personal level, be able to do, that you cannot do now?

Join the slow queues for non-EU nationals at passport control when entering an EU country and possibly have to complete an arrivals card or obtain a visa or travel authorisation in advance (for a fee.)

 

[Barn]

It's the honesty of the situation. Claiming it's because it's undemocratic when really it's about what it actually does is quite disingenuous.

It's no surprise that those who generally support what the EU does don't see a democratic problem, whereas those who don't think it's an authoritarian dictatorship (at the extreme end of opposition).

Democracy is all about the individual relegating his/her personal beliefs to those of the population as a whole. It provides a means for those opposed to a situation to know when they are defeated.

I wanted Zac to win the London mayoralty but I accept that the majority of Londoners did not and I wish Sadiq well. I accept that the correct 'demos' for a vote on the mayoralty is the population of London. That demos spoke and my view was in a minority.

Likewise I accept that the correct demos for a vote on nationwide UK matters is the UK, and I will accept the views of the UK population expressed at the next general election.

That said, my personal belief is that mayors and local councils are about the most democractic institutions we have, and we should be devolving much more decision-making to local democratic institutions.

Some of the anti-democratic arguments about the EU revolve around its institutions. But, in my view, what most people really object to is the demos. It is harder to express this view without being branded as 'Little Englanders'.

But the point is that democracy only works when people are happy to postpone their own views behind those of the majority of the demos. If the demos is cast too widely for a particular issue, then people feel that their voice has been diluted too far, and that the decision-makers are too remote from them.

The EU does not, in my view, restrain itself to only those matters which really must be decided on a continent-wide basis. It neutralises national innovation and competition. It plays only lip-service to the treaty principle of subsidiarity.

Ironically, part of the reason why the EU institutions are not wholly democratic is out of an acknowledgement of the demos problem. We can't have a sovereign European Parliament without a European populace which is happy to share in a full federal democracy.

This does make a sustainable democratic European Union a bit of an 'all or nothing' approach. I suspect that you would be happy with a fully federal United States of Europe. That is an honourable view. I would prefer a friendly inter-governmental association of sovereign countries. I think that is also an honourable view.

I don't think that the third option, muddling along with the half-half approach, is going to be sustainable for the UK or for other European member states. But because of the assumed toxicity of the federalisation option, we're only being offered Brexit or muddling along. I choose Brexit.

 

[miami]

The EU executive branch isn't democratic. However neither is the UK executive branch (and I'm not talking about figureheads).

Should we have a situation where the executive is elected, like in the US? We see the mess that the US gets into every 4 years, and indeed when there's a mismatch between congress and the executive.

How about the judicial branch? Should we elect judges? They do in some US states.

Fundamentally democracy only works well when the electorate is informed. When the electorate isn't informed, it becomes a tool of the opinion makers - the half a dozen men that control the UKs media. The media portrays europe as a "UK vs the continent" battle, rather than explaining the ways Labour MEPs and Tory MEPs differ, or how Labour and Lib Dem differ, and how they fit in with the rest of parliament, the council, and the commission. 30 years of lies from the media have led a large portion of the country to simply ignore facts and just go "I don't care, time to get OUT!! (23 likes)"

Direct democracy in the commission wouldn't really help, I'm not informed over europe in general, let along the specifics of who would be best running the commission. As such I'm happy to allow my local MEPs to make that decision while I try to work out what is going on.

There are good reasons to be concerned about the EU. It's too beholden to national governments, the population of the EU seems to be swinging towards facsism, the free movement of people does drive lower prices to the consumer, but can also lower wages in a few areas, and there's the pork - the sillyness of upping sticks to Strasbourg every month because of the treaty (something that is only there because sovereign nations have all the power and the EU has none of it. These reasons aren't why people are voting to leave though, the reasons they give make no sense, they're based on gut feelings and lies.

It's very frustrating.

 

[northwichcat]

I wanted Zac to win the London mayoralty but I accept that the majority of Londoners did not and I wish Sadiq well. I accept that the correct 'demos' for a vote on the mayoralty is the population of London. That demos spoke and my view was in a minority.

Likewise I accept that the correct demos for a vote on nationwide UK matters is the UK, and I will accept the views of the UK population expressed at the next general election.

There's a difference there - London mayor was one man or woman as a standalone contest and there was no need for tactical voting.

In the general election the number of MPs for each party decides who becomes PM so there's some tactical voting when people vote for their MP.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Democracy is all about the individual relegating his/her personal beliefs to those of the population as a whole. It provides a means for those opposed to a situation to know when they are defeated.

I wanted Zac to win the London mayoralty but I accept that the majority of Londoners did not and I wish Sadiq well. I accept that the correct 'demos' for a vote on the mayoralty is the population of London. That demos spoke and my view was in a minority.

Likewise I accept that the correct demos for a vote on nationwide UK matters is the UK, and I will accept the views of the UK population expressed at the next general election.

That said, my personal belief is that mayors and local councils are about the most democractic institutions we have, and we should be devolving much more decision-making to local democratic institutions.

Some of the anti-democratic arguments about the EU revolve around its institutions. But, in my view, what most people really object to is the demos. It is harder to express this view without being branded as 'Little Englanders'.

But the point is that democracy only works when people are happy to postpone their own views behind those of the majority of the demos. If the demos is cast too widely for a particular issue, then people feel that their voice has been diluted too far, and that the decision-makers are too remote from them.

The EU does not, in my view, restrain itself to only those matters which really must be decided on a continent-wide basis. It neutralises national innovation and competition. It plays only lip-service to the treaty principle of subsidiarity.

Ironically, part of the reason why the EU institutions are not wholly democratic is out of an acknowledgement of the demos problem. We can't have a sovereign European Parliament without a European populace which is happy to share in a full federal democracy.

This does make a sustainable democratic European Union a bit of an 'all or nothing' approach. I suspect that you would be happy with a fully federal United States of Europe. That is an honourable view. I would prefer a friendly inter-governmental association of sovereign countries. I think that is also an honourable view.

I don't think that the third option, muddling along with the half-half approach, is going to be sustainable for the UK or for other European member states. But because of the assumed toxicity of the federalisation option, we're only being offered Brexit or muddling along. I choose Brexit.

I agree on the demos, but what is important here is the power that is being wielded. Power in a democratic institution (such as a parliament) consists of three elements:

1) The power to win debates.
2) The power to control what debates take place.
3) The power to manipulate the views of others.

What I dispute is not that people are dissatisfied about the demos itself or whatever, but that they wish to exert greater control over the very nature of the debates itself. Upon Brexit, the country will undoubtedly move towards the right, and those who advocate it know this. Currently, the EU causes them to 'lose' many of the debates in which they are participating, and so they wish to simply prevent these from happening.

I don't view this as being motivated by wanting a more proportionate electoral system or more citizen participation, but simply by the motivation to control the very nature of the debate itself. In my view, this is anti-democratic. At the same time, I am open to the suggestion otherwise: democracy work at many levels.

 

[Barn]

I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is a socialist counterweight to the UK Government, but if it did move to the right that would surely be because the British electorate are voting that way, wouldn't it?

Doesn't your point work equally well the other way around - some people (including most notably Corbyn) agree that the EU does not fit with their views on democracy but stick with it because it helps to shape the debate in their favour?

The EU is a strange mix of ideologies, anyway. Within its borders it is a neoliberal free-market zone which is somewhat allergic to state support of industry. At its frontier with the rest of the world it is the opposite - protectionist.

What the EU is very good at is making people feel dependent on it. There is a narrative that we only get holiday pay because of the Working Time Directive, and that the genders are only treated equally because of the EU. This is a disservice to those who fought for these things (both within unions and within parliament) long before we joined the EU.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is a socialist counterweight to the UK Government, but if it did move to the right that would surely be because the British electorate are voting that way, wouldn't it?

Doesn't your point work equally well the other way around - some people (including most notably Corbyn) agree that the EU does not fit with their views on democracy but stick with it because it helps to shape the debate in their favour?

The EU is a strange mix of ideologies, anyway. Within its borders it is a neoliberal free-market zone which is somewhat allergic to state support of industry. At its frontier with the rest of the world it is the opposite - protectionist.

What the EU is very good at is making people feel dependent on it. There is a narrative that we only get holiday pay because of the Working Time Directive, and that the genders are only treated equally because of the EU. This is a disservice to those who fought for these things (both within unions and within parliament) long before we joined the EU.

Yes, I don't deny that. Which I why I think the whole debate on democracy is misleading: people use it when it suits them, and then say things are fine and dandy when it doesn't.

However, I think we should be careful: Britain would not be in a position where we could outright reject the EU. Despite the conspiracy theories of those who reject anything that disagree with their Brexit narrative, the Treasury's findings were that for the best Brexit result we would end up being almost as beholden as we currently are whilst paying nearly as much, and for the worst result (just abiding by World Trade Organisation stipulations so not beholden to the EU at all) we would see a nearly 8% drop in GDP. That might sound like it's "acceptable", but when people start losing their jobs, firms go out of business and the people are braying for blood for those responsible, things won't look so rosy. The Great Recession saw - at its worst - a 6% contraction: smaller than these predictions.

The Treasury wants what is best for this country - there is no point being zealously in favour of remain without any tangible benefits, and those who believe in remaining know that.

 

[miami]

I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is a socialist counterweight to the UK Government, but if it did move to the right that would surely be because the British electorate are voting that way, wouldn't it?

You're assuming the UK government reflects the voting opinion of the country, and we know it doesn't.

However the core point of how people like Murdoch manipulate the votes.

What the EU is very good at is making people feel dependent on it. There is a narrative that we only get holiday pay because of the Working Time Directive, and that the genders are only treated equally because of the EU. This is a disservice to those who fought for these things (both within unions and within parliament) long before we joined the EU.

The EU protects those things, they can't be taken away by Ian Duncan Smith.

 

[Barn]

You're assuming the UK government reflects the voting opinion of the country, and we know it doesn't.

Whatever the faults with the current voting system, it is not biased towards right-of-centre governments. In fact, in its current form (pre-boundary reform) it is if anything biased towards Labour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, I think we should be careful: Britain would not be in a position where we could outright reject the EU. Despite the conspiracy theories of those who reject anything that disagree with their Brexit narrative, the Treasury's findings were that for the best Brexit result we would end up being almost as beholden as we currently are whilst paying nearly as much, and for the worst result (just abiding by World Trade Organisation stipulations so not beholden to the EU at all) we would see a nearly 8% drop in GDP. That might sound like it's "acceptable", but when people start losing their jobs, firms go out of business and the people are braying for blood for those responsible, things won't look so rosy. The Great Recession saw - at its worst - a 6% contraction: smaller than these predictions.

The Treasury wants what is best for this country - there is no point being zealously in favour of remain without any tangible benefits, and those who believe in remaining know that.

(a) The report came from the Treasury, not the OBR. It was Osborne himself who told us never to trust Treasury reports because they always have an agenda.

(b) The report was not a forecast, it was a 'scenario analysis' looking at the effects of a "shock" and a "semi-shock".

(c) The report assumes no upside at all and assumes no mitigating factors are put in place (a poor indictment on the government's future achievements, particularly coming from the two men who incredibly still claim that they would lead that government).

(d) Even if you believe them, the 'drops' in GDP / house prices, etc are not really drops at all. Rather than being falls from what we are now experiencing, they are purported falls from the forecast rises in OBR reports. So the 'fall' in house prices is a fall against the forecast rise over the period, which equates to house prices being flat or rising slowly.

 

[Muttley]

Oi, Knighty, that's twice you've quoted my posts, ignored completely what I've said, then made an argument about democracy. Please find anywhere I've used democracy as a reason to leave, then you can quote that and argue about it.

 

[radamfi]

I seem to remember asking this in another thread, but:
If the UK votes to leave the EU, what will you, at a personal level, be able to do, that you cannot do now?

I may not be able to live and/or work in another EU/EEA country in the future, or at least not as easily as I could now.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oi, Knighty, that's twice you've quoted my posts, ignored completely what I've said, then made an argument about democracy. Please find anywhere I've used democracy as a reason to leave, then you can quote that and argue about it.

Not everything in this discussion revolves around you. You kept saying we didn't have a voice, but apparently it's nothing to do with democracy? I'm not buying that I'm afraid.

 

[miami]

I may not be able to live and/or work in another EU/EEA country in the future, or at least not as easily as I could now.

We're almost certain to sign up to free movement of people, like Norway does.

 

[radamfi]

We're almost certain to sign up to free movement of people, like Norway does.

But Brexters don't want that, and arguably would make a Leave vote nearly pointless. Or maybe immigration isn't actually the big deal after all? Could the Brexiters on here say whether they would tolerate free movement like Norway in the event of Brexit?