In Or Out?

[Riedquat]

******ing hell that's a big move.

It does really feel like leave has massive momentum and remain is in a bit of a daze.

Hopefully the negativity is getting to people. Being negative is fine for Leave - their whole position is based on "These are the problems that we want rid of", but Remain needs to sell the positives much more than it needs to bang out about risks of leaving, and that's a much harder task (to be fair it's probably a hard task for any argument at all, it's usually easier to attack rather than promote). They've let Leave put them on the defensive (or more accurately they've chosen to go there themselves).

[ccc]

Yep the constant threats of imminent disaster are really starting to turn the 'maybes' imo.

[winkie]

Yep the constant threats of imminent disaster are really starting to turn the 'maybes' imo.

[Bossybabe]

This is the biggest mistake they have made yet ...if they can`t see that god help us all ..i think both sides want out either that or the remain camp is run by morons

Hmmm...aren't both camps run by morons?

[MrPin]

I think the HPC demographic is just anti beaurocracy. The EU has some good points and we may lose a bit of influence if we leave. Still, the moon will still go round at the same rate. And fine British ales will taste better.

Norway seems to do OK with some sort of reciprocal trade agreement, but not actually being IN.

A Norwegian chap I know voted for IN, but in retrospect decided OUT was better, for the reason that Norway is quite a small country, and might have little say. Slovenia might feel the same in a few years.

[winkie]

[MrPin]

IN or OUT is not a good enough question is it? We all want to know how IN or OUT, and politicians aren't telling us.

Winkie has an appalling record collection.

[SillyBilly]

Unemployment is down sharply in Portugal and falling in Greece and Spain. Ireland is growing very strongly.

It really isn't a disaster.

I think betting against the Euro is a safe long term bet as the foundations aren't there. I personally think we're only a trigger event away from another "Euro crisis". Those last two words seem to go hand-in-hand .

[long time lurking]

Hmmm...aren't both camps run by morons?

Well one camp is doing something right ...make what you will of that one

[thecrashingisles]

I think betting against the Euro is a safe long term bet as the foundations aren't there. I personally think we're only a trigger event away from another "Euro crisis". Those last two words seem to go hand-in-hand .

The trouble is that every crisis gets called a 'Euro-crisis' even if it is not about the Euro. Not every financial crisis in the UK is a Sterling crisis.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

The 'war with our neighbours is unthinkable' status quo, yes.

By that argument Canada would currently be at war with the US.

[thecrashingisles]

By that argument Canada would currently be at war with the US.

No because a ) Canada has never been hostile to the US except to the extent that it was a British possession, and b ) Canada is not threat in terms of being able to defy America on anything that matters.

You can't compare it with Europe where we have centuries of conflict between evenly matched rival powers, going right up to the present day as we still don't have a settled relationship with Russia.

[SpectrumFX]

No because a ) Canada has never been hostile to the US except to the extent that it was a British possession, and b ) Canada is not threat in terms of being able to defy America on anything that matters.

You can't compare it with Europe where we have centuries of conflict between evenly matched rival powers, going right up to the present day as we still don't have a settled relationship with Russia.

The Americans invaded Canada in 1812. We burned down the White House in 1814 as part of the war that followed.

The bigger the state, the bigger and more brutal the potential for war.

[thecrashingisles]

The Americans invaded Canada in 1812. We burned down the White House in 1814 as part of the war that followed.

The bigger the state, the bigger and more brutal the potential for war.

They invaded the British Empire.

[The Masked Tulip]

Here is a poll on efestivals, glastonbury forum;

IN 84.85% (336 votes)

OUT 15.15% (60 votes)

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/212833-are-we-in-or-out/

Maybe some links to some EU migrant gang rapes might change a few voters.

[Frank Hovis]

Maybe some links to some EU migrant gang rapes might change a few voters.

Closed minds will brush these off as caused by unrepresentative individuals.

I read on mumsnet one (minority view) poster saying that the Pakistani rape gangs of Rotherham, Oxford etc. were not an argument against uncontrolled immigration because the rapists were all British men so the problem was with British society not protecting women sufficiently.

Technically correct I grant you but still a WTabsoluteF??? moment.

[justthisbloke]

I think betting against the Euro is a safe long term bet as the foundations aren't there. I personally think we're only a trigger event away from another "Euro crisis". Those last two words seem to go hand-in-hand .

Before the Euro, the standard financial pages headline was "Sterling Crisis".

[justthisbloke]

Do you not think smaller democracies are more accountable? Iceland, Switzerland, spring to mind.

Its not just EU independence I would have voted for, but Scottish also, if I was a Scot. Yes, with the SNP in charge and all their $100 oil nonsense, id be screwed in the short term, but once people had woken up to what a bunch of useless halfwits the SNP MSPs are (half of them barely out of school, it seems), i think Scotland could prosper on its own.

Aristotle himself said no more than 100,000 is possible for democracy to be effective.

Maybe we can raise that somewhat with more accessible communication and information. But hundreds of millions? Brussels just seems so remote and untouchable. I guess on the other side there are limitations...until government/borders are history we dont want to fracture into village states, but certainly in the case of Scotland, where their major centres of population (Edinburgh/Glasgow) are a long way from the nearest English one (Newcastle), i dont think daily life would suffer, the respective 'spheres of influence' dont clash.

If all else fails. I just look at who wants the status quo. The fact alone that the big banks back 'Remain' is plenty confirmation for me to leave.

On one level I do like the idea of open borders. I still have some libertarian instincts, and it seems daft that anyone should be prohibited from buying property and living anywhere. But the way to achieve that, to get rid of that facet of government, is to get rid of government in its entirety, not to have some kind of faustian pact where we get freedom of movement/no borders in exchange for complete submission to government everywhere else. And the EU has made enough totalitarian noises to convince me thats their plan. I guess I see the way to destroy the increasingly obsolete nation state is not to progressively upscale it (EU) into one world order, but to progressively downsize it. I honestly think by upscaling it, you get centralization of power, and thus risk absolute corruption of power with no where to escape to. The whole planet becomes a prison. Competition between nations IMO is a lot like those between firms. Mergers/consolidation kills that. Removes the existence of alternatives. The EU is nothing more than a merging of nations into a bigger nation, and thus further monopolizes power and control.

It's interesting; I'm against "big government" - but pro-EU.

To me, "big government" isn't a measure of how many people come under it - it's more accurately a measure of how intrusive and freedom-limiting that government is. And the EU, to date, has acted more to curtail the over-intrusive acts of national governments than anything else.

If I was planning my ideal world, the EU would be unlikely to feature. A patchwork of relatively powerless city-states would do me. But we are where we are - and I really can't see a functional future outside the EU.

[SpectrumFX]

They invaded the British Empire.

Their economy must have imploded when they left the Empire

[SpectrumFX]

OK, everybody who wants to stay in.

Who's the president of the European Commission,

Who's the president of the European Council, and

Who's the president of the European Parliament.

How many people in the UK do you think can name the 3?

Very few I expect.

[dgul]

It's interesting; I'm against "big government" - but pro-EU.

To me, "big government" isn't a measure of how many people come under it - it's more accurately a measure of how intrusive and freedom-limiting that government is. And the EU, to date, has acted more to curtail the over-intrusive acts of national governments than anything else.

If I was planning my ideal world, the EU would be unlikely to feature. A patchwork of relatively powerless city-states would do me. But we are where we are - and I really can't see a functional future outside the EU.

It is a fair way of thinking about the problem.

I'd say the argument against this is that it is a bit like benevolent dictatorship - all very nice but what happens with the successor?

The risk would be that if the EU government decided that it was in the interests of everyone for freedoms to be limited a bit (or a lot) then there isn't much you could do about it.

Now, this is a bit like the UK - if the SE of England decided that it would be best to limit freedom, and Yorkshire thought it would be best for freedom to be unconstrained then your Yorkshireman would get a limit of freedom and there wouldn't be anything he could do... But it is arguably a case of distance from the decision-making and whether others in the EU are so far removed from a broadly British identity that there is no space for Britain's democratic interests.

As an interesting point, it might be considered that the general make-up of the EU might be very much interested in championing freedom, given the proximity of so many of the (newer) member states to socialist dictatorship.

I suppose it should also be stated that there is every reason for a UK government to introduce freedoms, if that is the general want of the electorate - it isn't a 'special' characteristic of the EU. The counterpoint being that if a member state government want to restrict freedoms it will reflect the wants of their electorate - in a democracy you have to take the rough with the smooth...

In fact, the only thing you really want to outlaw in a democracy is the ability of the elected members (or, even worse, the senior civil servants) to introduce changes/legislation away from the wants of the electorate - ie, to reduce democratic power.

I think away from the immigration hysteria much of the concerns about the EU is that it appears to be somewhat less democratic that the UK parliament.

[thecrashingisles]

Their economy must have imploded when they left the Empire

They acquired a lot of territory and people after they did. Are you proposing we do the same after Brexit?

[Riedquat]

To me, "big government" isn't a measure of how many people come under it - it's more accurately a measure of how intrusive and freedom-limiting that government is. And the EU, to date, has acted more to curtail the over-intrusive acts of national governments than anything else.

The very fact it's able to do that though is a sign that it's too big and intrusive, even on those occasions where that power is being used for something good. If it only stepped in in such cirucmstances it would be harder to dislike, but even then...

[SpectrumFX]

They acquired a lot of territory and people after they did. Are you proposing we do the same after Brexit?

I'd be open to starting a new more democratic EU for a smaller number of more like minded states. I think a union of the UK, Ireland and the Dutch would work. As could a Latin EU of France, Spain, Italy and Portugal.

I do think the EU is too big, but my objections to the current set up are as much about how it is being done as they are about whether it should be done at all.

[Bloo Loo]

I'd be open to starting a new more democratic EU for a smaller number of more like minded states. I think a union of the UK, Ireland and the Dutch would work. As could a Latin EU of France, Spain, Italy and Portugal.

I do think the EU is too big, but my objections to the current set up are as much about how it is being done as they are about whether it should be done at all.

The EU is already setting itself up as a super state...with an unelected leadership.

It has: A Central Bank, lawmakers, borders, local government.

It is about to get: A security force.

It is not far from being a state.