Should We Leave the EU?

[Joseph.bevan96]

I am currently conducting a poll into Britain's EU membership.

If anyone on here would like to answer please go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CYJWWNR

Any responses would be very welcome if you do so, could you please PM me your name.

I will reveal my personal standing when the poll closes!

Thank you
Joseph.

Hi all, just a final push for anyone that would like to take part in this.

Also, thank you to any participants, I will be posting a link to the exit poll throughout the day on 23rd and would appreciate it that anyone that has taken part would take part again so I can see if any change has occurred within the sample.

 

[Barn]

How is that different in principle from the self-evident problem that that the British Government appears to have no appetite for any serious electoral reform, or any changes that would make the British system significantly more democratic? (And the same currently appears to be true for the Labour Party, the only other party with any significant chance of becoming the Government in the next few years)

You have, at least in theory, the power to elect a party which will pledge to introduce electoral reform. The fact that no parties likely to win promote a policy you support doesn't in itself mean that we are not democratic, it just means that your view is not a compelling issue for the voting public at the moment (NB there was an AV referendum only a few years ago). We can't all win all of the time in democracy.

 

[miami]

at least in theory

I'm more of a practical person and look at how government actually works rather than how it could work in theory.

In theory we could vote for UKIP. In fact 1 in 8 of us did. If that number increases in 2020 to say 3 in 8 or 4 in 8, I'm sure UKIP will skip the formality of a referendum and march us out of the EU.

A "remain" vote now doesn't mean we can't change our minds in 5 years time. A leave vote does.

 

[ainsworth74]

Agreed. Claims that the paper headline encourages Poles who are not British citizens to register as British citizens are completely false.

Plus if they don't meet the eligibility criteria to be British citizens then they won't be getting very far with trying to become such. And if they are eligible to be British citizens why should it matter if they decide to become citizens? Shouldn't we want people who live here and have made a life here to become citizens?

 

[Barn]

I'm more of a practical person and look at how government actually works rather than how it could work in theory.

I'm not talking about theory of government. The point I'm making is that the fact insufficient people agree with you about something doesn't mean that we're undemocratic, it's just that you're not presently on the winning side of the debate. Voting reform was tried a few years ago and rejected. That's democracy for you.

 

[Senex]

You have, at least in theory, the power to elect a party which will pledge to introduce electoral reform. The fact that no parties likely to win promote a policy you support doesn't in itself mean that we are not democratic, it just means that your view is not a compelling issue for the voting public at the moment (NB there was an AV referendum only a few years ago). We can't all win all of the time in democracy.

I think some of us question whether we have real democracy in Britain. There is, as others have pointed out, no correlation between the numbers of votes cast and the numbers of members of the various parties elected. Many electors are in a position where their vote counts for nothing and where they cannot feel themsevles represented in any way by the person returned under FPTP for their constituency. And that is just for the lower house. The upper house doesn't even pretend to be representative or democratic, being purely made up of the politicians' place-men and women (often the superannuated members of the lower house or those who have failed to get elected to the lower house). And we all remain subjects of an antiquated monarchy in the name of which the government of the day can exercise massive uncontrolled powers through the royal prerogative.

Of course, it suits Labour and the Tories to keep things as they are, as each of them still hopes to have its turn from time to time with unfettered power. And you could argue that FPTP is fair enough if there are only two parties, but that is no longer the case.

I think that by comparison with a good many European countries we have a pretty primitive and pretty undemocratic system. It's no accident that it's the Tory Colonel Blimps who still think it's the model for the world -- the very people who are still living in an age before WW2 (if not even before WW1).

And by the way, you mention AV. Many of us saw that as a deliberate attempt by the major parties to kick the whole reform question into the long grass with a proposal that would satisfy no-one, the traditionalists because it was a change, the modernisers because it is not a genuinely proportional system. Those of us who want proportional representation could not vote for a system that, had it been introduced, would have frozen things in a thoroughly unsatisfactory position for years to come.

 

[miami]

The house of lords has one redeeming feature, at least in theory. Currently the prime minister, when deciding who runs the various government departments, has the choice of a bunch of politicians. Not exactly inspiring. If he wants someone who isn't a career politician to get in there, because perhaps they are experts in that area, he can appoint them as a lord and then give the a job.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You have, at least in theory, the power to elect a party which will pledge to introduce electoral reform. The fact that no parties likely to win promote a policy you support doesn't in itself mean that we are not democratic, it just means that your view is not a compelling issue for the voting public at the moment (NB there was an AV referendum only a few years ago). We can't all win all of the time in democracy.

And how is that different from the EU? Presumably, if EU reform was a compelling issue for the electorate within EU countries, then that electorate would elect both MEPs and national governments who are committed to such reform, and that reform would therefore happen. So the fact that it is not happening indicates that our view [that reform is required] is not a compelling issue for the [EU] voting public at the moment. As you say, we can't win all of the time in a democracy.

But you still haven't addressed the fundamental inconsistency in your viewpoint: That you appear to be arguing that we should respond to democratic shortcomings in the UK by attempting to elect representatives who will fix those shortcomings (and, presumably, accept the result if we are outvoted), but you do not apply the same principle to the EU.

 

[Barn]

And how is that different from the EU? Presumably, if EU reform was a compelling issue for the electorate within EU countries, then that electorate would elect both MEPs and national governments who are committed to such reform, and that reform would therefore happen. So the fact that it is not happening indicates that our view [that reform is required] is not a compelling issue for the [EU] voting public at the moment. As you say, we can't win all of the time in a democracy.

But you still haven't addressed the fundamental inconsistency in your viewpoint: That you appear to be arguing that we should respond to democratic shortcomings in the UK by attempting to elect representatives who will fix those shortcomings (and, presumably, accept the result if we are outvoted), but you do not apply the same principle to the EU.

There is no inconsistency. We can't elect representatives to the EU to change it from within. The treaties don't work like that.

In response to your suggestion that we could, as Europeans, all simultaneously elect pro-reform governments: this implies that we are a single European population across the continent who agree to exercise democratic decisions together as a continent. Nobody has ever asked us if we are happy with that. I accept that the status quo wins if people in Inverness and Bangor and Newry and Preston want it to. Nobody has asked us if we're happy to accept the status quo because people in Prague and Lisbon and Luxembourg and Vilnius are happy with it.

Can't you see that making points like this requires the federal Europe mindset that we sceptics fear is the intended final destination of the EU?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think some of us question whether we have real democracy in Britain. There is, as others have pointed out, no correlation between the numbers of votes cast and the numbers of members of the various parties elected. Many electors are in a position where their vote counts for nothing and where they cannot feel themsevles represented in any way by the person returned under FPTP for their constituency. And that is just for the lower house. The upper house doesn't even pretend to be representative or democratic, being purely made up of the politicians' place-men and women (often the superannuated members of the lower house or those who have failed to get elected to the lower house). And we all remain subjects of an antiquated monarchy in the name of which the government of the day can exercise massive uncontrolled powers through the royal prerogative.

Of course, it suits Labour and the Tories to keep things as they are, as each of them still hopes to have its turn from time to time with unfettered power. And you could argue that FPTP is fair enough if there are only two parties, but that is no longer the case.

I think that by comparison with a good many European countries we have a pretty primitive and pretty undemocratic system. It's no accident that it's the Tory Colonel Blimps who still think it's the model for the world -- the very people who are still living in an age before WW2 (if not even before WW1).

And by the way, you mention AV. Many of us saw that as a deliberate attempt by the major parties to kick the whole reform question into the long grass with a proposal that would satisfy no-one, the traditionalists because it was a change, the modernisers because it is not a genuinely proportional system. Those of us who want proportional representation could not vote for a system that, had it been introduced, would have frozen things in a thoroughly unsatisfactory position for years to come.

FPTP is not a proportional system. That doesn't mean that it is not democratic - it is just a constituency-based system. We have always had a constituency-based system and there are advantages of that. I just don't have a sense that there is an overwhelming demand for a list-based system from the British public. If I am wrong and you are really worried about it, launch a mass movement to change the voting system and maybe you'll drum up that demand.

When comparing Britain with European nations, remember that their constitutions often arose through revolutions, civil war or international war. France is on its fifth republic since abolishing the monarchy! Britain's has grown with us through the ages because we have never suffered the total collapse in society that precipitates major constitutional change (the rapidly-repaired Cromwell blip excepted!). It is both ancient and modern. We have anachronisms and we have conventions that have developed to prevent those anachronisms interfering with democratic expectations. It is worth bearing this in mind before we throw away our 'primitive' system.

 

[Senex]

FPTP is not a proportional system. That doesn't mean that it is not democratic - it is just a constituency-based system. We have always had a constituency-based system and there are advantages of that.

You can perfectly well have a constituency-based system with PR by using multi-member constituencies, as some other countries do. This has the great advantage that more people in each constituency can actually feel that they are represented.

But the underlying question is what is democratic? How do we ascertain the will of the demos? If what the majority wants should win, should what is not wanted by a great majority ever win (see the 2015 election)? And so on.

 

[EM2]

There is no inconsistency. We can't elect representatives to the EU to change it from within. The treaties don't work like that.

But our elected Prime Minister managed to negotiate an EU reform deal. So if all EU countries wanted to, they could elect heads of Government that wanted to do the same.

 

[DarloRich]

I still have no idea how I will vote.

The quality of debate has been shockingly, perhaps purposefully, low and the presentation of information skewed incredibly by both sides. I hoped for some reasoned (if passionate ) debate but all we have are braying mobs of mainly Tories wittering on about things many people don't understand or misrepresent.

it is incredibly frustrating

 

[Barn]

But our elected Prime Minister managed to negotiate an EU reform deal. So if all EU countries wanted to, they could elect heads of Government that wanted to do the same.

Yes, which point I covered in the sentence immediately below the one you quoted.

 

[Johnuk123]

But our elected Prime Minister managed to negotiate an EU reform deal.

Except he didn't, not one word of any treaty has been changed.
There has been no reform.

 

[EM2]

Yes, which point I covered in the sentence immediately below the one you quoted.

The point being that the will isn't there, so, as a democracy for the people of Europe, the EU is obviously working fine, because it's only the UK that wants to change it.

 

[Barn]

The point being that the will isn't there, so, as a democracy for the people of Europe, the EU is obviously working fine, because it's only the UK that wants to change it.

Firstly, that isn't really true. Look at the regular street protests in Greece, the popularity of the Front National in France, Austria's close encounter with fascism, unrest in Sweden, referendums frequently going against Europe whenever people are asked and having to be redone, opinion polls showing support for the EU below 50% in almost every EU country. It's just that only the UK government has the nerve to make a nuisance of itself and finally, finally, grant a referendum.

Secondly, even if it were the case, why does it matter to us what others think of the EU? What we think of it is what counts, unless you have already mentally surrendered our national will to that of the greater European population.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Except he didn't, not one word of any treaty has been changed.
There has been no reform.

Yes, there has been a double whammy of failures.

Firstly, even if fully implemented, the reform hardly achieves anything.

Secondly, implementing the 'reform' requires the approval of member states and the European Parliament and I would be astounded if the whole reform was implemented unscathed and respected thereafter.

 

[miami]

unless you have already mentally surrendered our national will to that of the greater European population.

I think this is the crux. Boil away all the talk about the economy (we will be better off in the EU, but it won't be a major difference) and immigration (it will be easier for syrians to get into the UK if we leave the EU, but it won't make a major difference), and it comes down to how you feel we should be ruled, either a multi-level construct, where international issues (environment, trade, migration) are dealt with at an international level, regional issues (bypasses, power stations) are dealt with at a regional level, and local issues (housing etc) are dealt with at a local level.

Or do you think power should be concentrated in a single location in the middle, and international issues should be reliant on treaties we have no say on and little visibility of. Think TTIP but with every issue that the EU deals with.

If I lived in a "devolved-power" area like Scotland, perhaps I'd be more open to the idea of Westminster keeping control. I have nothing in common with the bankers in London though, I have far more in common with suppliers, customers, and competitors I work with across Europe.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The OBV poster is a form of advertising. Like all adverts some people will be influenced by it's message and some won't.

Indeed it is. The aim of the poster is to encourage black and Asian people to vote. However contrary to what you're suggesting there is no reason to think that black and Asian's will start to fear and hate their white colleagues, friends and relatives because of this poster. In order for people to be influenced by a advertising campaign the message has to be credible. In your example the alleged message is far from credible.

Where did I state that the advert will be 100% effective in it's aim of persuading minorities to vote leave because all BAME voters are too stupid to think for themselves?

I think you're starting to tie yourself up in knots here. The only aim of the marketing campaign is to encourage people to vote who might not always do so and nothing else. And given that you appear to be promoting BREXIT why are you so worried about blacks and Asians voting to leave the EU?

Or perhaps you're suggesting that a political group would never use fear to try and manipulate people?

No not at all. However blacks and Asians know that other than racists they have nothing to fear from the white population otherwise they wouldn't have white friends or indeed have white boy friends / girl friends / partners / husbands / wives! This campaign has used fear to the maximum in order to try and persuade people to vote one way or the other but apart from the party's of hate (the BNP, EDL and to a lesser extend UKIP) mercifully no one has attempted to encourage racial hatred.

 

[Senex]

If I lived in a "devolved-power" area like Scotland, perhaps I'd be more open to the idea of Westminster keeping control. I have nothing in common with the bankers in London though, I have far more in common with suppliers, customers, and competitors I work with across Europe.

How far have improved communications and more travel move us towards an education/jobs/friends-based identity and away from a state-based identity -- especially where that state is a mixture of nations that no longer seem to have too much in common? I certainly feel more in common with people in Dresden or Lyon or Utrecht than I do with Unionists from the Six Counties or those from some other parts of the supposedly United Kingdom, including the London bankers you mention.

 

[Gutfright]

I think you're starting to tie yourself up in knots here. The only aim of the marketing campaign is to encourage people to vote who might not always do so and nothing else. And given that you appear to be promoting BREXIT why are you so worried about blacks and Asians voting to leave the EU?

I wrote 'leave' when I clearly meant 'remain'. I think the younger generation would call it a brainfart on my part. Thanks for bringing that error to my attention.

Just to clear it up, the OBV poster is clearly designed to encourage minority voters to back 'remain'. By having a stereotype of a racist thug on the right of the seesaw instead of a generic white guy in beige chinos, the poster encourages minorities to ask the question "How will that skinhead d*ckhead who shouted abuse at me as I was walking down the street vote?", knowing the assumed answer will be Brexit. It is designed, as almost all advertising is, to put it's audience in an emotional state. In this case it tries to achieve it's aims by dredging up potentially very traumatic memories the viewer may have of nasty confrontations with far right skinheads and then invites the viewer, already in a frightened angry state and thus more suggestible, to consider whether they really want to be on the same side of the argument as Britain First, EDL, BNP etc.

The poster may as well have been captioned "REMINDER: MOST FAR RIGHT RACIST THUGS WILL BE BACKING BREXIT". It's message is obviously pro-remain.

However blacks and Asians know that other than racists they have nothing to fear from the white population otherwise they wouldn't have white friends or indeed have white boy friends / girl friends / partners / husbands / wives!

Yet the OBV poster focuses exclusively on the racists and gives no representation at all to the white people who are friends or partners with black and Asian people.

Unless you think that the man and woman on the poster are supposed to be happily married?

Indeed it is. The aim of the poster is to encourage black and Asian people to vote. However contrary to what you're suggesting there is no reason to think that black and Asian's will start to fear and hate their white colleagues, friends and relatives because of this poster.

The aim of the OBV poster is not to get BAME people to fear and hate all white people. The aim is to use the fear and hatred of racist skinhead thugs that minorities (justifiably) already feel to encourage a vote for remain.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yet the OBV poster focuses exclusively on the racists and gives no representation at all to the white people who are friends or partners with black and Asian people.

Unless you think that the man and woman on the poster are supposed to be happily married?

The aim of the OBV poster is not to get BAME people to fear and hate all white people. The aim is to use the fear and hatred of racist skinhead thugs that minorities (justifiably) already feel to encourage a vote for remain.

However that is not what you had suggested in your previous posts, where you had stated that the aim of the poster was to encourage blacks and Asians to hate white people, without any mention of known racists. Blacks and Asians do not need a poster to tell them that racists are a threat to themselves, they know that already so why would an organisation seek to waste its money doing that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to clear it up, the OBV poster is clearly designed to encourage minority voters to back 'remain'. By having a stereotype of a racist thug on the right of the seesaw instead of a generic white guy in beige chinos, the poster encourages minorities to ask the question "How will that skinhead d*ckhead who shouted abuse at me as I was walking down the street vote?", knowing the assumed answer will be Brexit. It is designed, as almost all advertising is, to put it's audience in an emotional state. In this case it tries to achieve it's aims by dredging up potentially very traumatic memories the viewer may have of nasty confrontations with far right skinheads and then invites the viewer, already in a frightened angry state and thus more suggestible, to consider whether they really want to be on the same side of the argument as Britain First, EDL, BNP etc.

The last thing on a black or Asian voters mind when deciding how to vote is "how would my sworn enemy decide to vote", they are more than capable of making their minds up by taking into account all the other factors. Indeed they couldn't care less how a racist is going to vote and given that those racist thugs make up a very small percentage of the electorate they are almost irrelevant. Blacks and Asians don't work themselves up over a poster of a thug, they have plenty of other things to concentrate their mind on just like you and I. Such as an actual physical attack by a racist, in which case how a racist thug who's just damaged their property is going to vote is the least of their worries!

As an aside, you maybe be interested to know that both my wife's parents intend to vote Brexit primarily due to immigration issues. Make's you think doesn't it.

 

[Gutfright]

Blacks and Asians do not need a poster to tell them that racists are a threat to themselves, they know that already so why would an organisation seek to waste its money doing that?

The aim of the OBV poster is not to warn BAME people that racists should be seen as a threat. The aim is to dredge up the fear and hatred of racist skinhead thugs that minorities already feel and use it to encourage a vote for remain.

The last thing on a black or Asian voters mind when deciding how to vote is "how would my sworn enemy decide to vote"

That's the state of affairs the OBV poster is designed to change. That's why the guy in the poster is dressed like a neo-nazi skinhead and not just a generic white guy in bland Gap clothes. The raison d'être of the poster is to encourage black and Asian voters to think about "how would my sworn enemy decide to vote?"

 

[Barn]

I certainly feel more in common with people in Dresden or Lyon or Utrecht than I do with Unionists from the Six Counties or those from some other parts of the supposedly United Kingdom, including the London bankers you mention.

OK.

NB: Support for the EU is almost certainly much higher among London bankers than among citizens of Lyon or Utrecht

 

[AndrewNewens]

Anyway..... one argument that is put forward for leaving the EU is that it would be more 'democratic' if everything were to be decided by our own Parliament.

This YouTube video, through not referendum related, throws a spanner in that particular argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

But it looks like the Exit camp are playing more and more heavily on the immigration issue. And as I said in an earlier post, good old fashioned racism is hidden under a thin veneer for far too many Brexiteers.

I got blasted for saying this before by an angry Brexiteer and thanks to all who came back and put that particular gentleman in his place.

 

[Steveman]

As I said in an earlier post, good old fashioned racism is hidden under a thin veneer for far too many Brexiteers.

You must have met a fair few Leavers to know that "far too many" are racists.
Have you thought it might be you that has a problem.

 

[Welly]

Circulating social media is a photo of several identical skulls with captions of "White man", "Asian man" etc which appears to make the point that we are all the same underneath regardless of skin colour, etc until the final one which is obviously a chimp's skull with the caption, "Brexiter"

That will change my mind(!)

 

[Johnuk123]

Labour's Pat Glass has once again put her foot in it by saying -

Women and young people were 'key' to a successful Remain vote in the referendum,"Go and speak to your mother, your grandmother. Don't speak to your grandfather, we know the problem are older white men."

After calling an individual a "horrible racist" last week you would have thought she'd have kept her head down.
If a Tory or UKIP member had said "don't listen to older black men" the left would be in uproar.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Labour's Pat Glass has once again put her foot in it by saying -

After calling an individual a "horrible racist" last week you would have thought she'd have kept her head down.
If a Tory or UKIP member had said "don't listen to older black men" the left would be in uproar.

I concur that Pat Glass simply cannot help herself. One of the reasons that the Labour Party (a party which I'm a member of) is so helplessly out of touch with the working class is because of people like Pat Glass. Having concerns about immigration doesn't automatically mean that you are racist.

In my view the Labour Party is not doing enough to engage with the working class over the issue of immigration, or convincing them to vote to stay in the EU for that matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Circulating social media is a photo of several identical skulls with captions of "White man", "Asian man" etc which appears to make the point that we are all the same underneath regardless of skin colour, etc until the final one which is obviously a chimp's skull with the caption, "Brexiter"

That will change my mind(!)

Would it be possible to show the link to the social media website?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The point being that the will isn't there, so, as a democracy for the people of Europe, the EU is obviously working fine, because it's only the UK that wants to change it.

So no dissent allowed in the Fourth Reich then?

 

[TheKnightWho]

You must have met a fair few Leavers to know that "far too many" are racists.
Have you thought it might be you that has a problem.

If you're more outraged by being called a racist than racism itself then you are the problem.