The UK referendum on the EU

As many of you will be aware, mounting disquiet in europe has led to increasing support for far right, left and separatist parties across the EU. In the UK mounting pressure from UKIP and longstanding divisions over the UK's place in the EU led to Conservative Prime Minister David cameron pledging to attempt to renegotiate Britain's place in the EU and then put the issue of continued membership to a referendum. His party succeeded against the predictions to win a majority government and as promised he has attempted to renegotiate and a deal has been secured with the referendum date set for 23/06/2016.

The issue is internationally significant as the UK makes up part of the centre right in europe and its removal will shift power internally towards the poorer south and east and away from the north. As the UK is a net contributor removal would also lead to either reduced investment in the net recipient states or a rise in tax amongst the contributors to account for the shortfall. It would also end a secondary flow of money from the UK supplementary benefit benefit system to families in EE and likely negatively impact life there. (a minimum wage job in the UK + attendant top up benefits is larger than the average wage in poland)

The details of cameron's deal are here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

the main points are a removal of the treaty commitment for 'ever closer union' for the UK and a tapering suspension of in work benefits for eu immigrants for 7 years.

The broad arguments for each side are as follows:

Remain:

The UK is stronger within the EU than outside as it has a voice on decisions
better trade deals with entities like china and the US are possible because of collective bargaining.
Much of the UK employment protections come from EU legislation
The EU is democratic as the UK can elect MEPs and has a seat on the council for their head of government.
The EU would penalise a british exit and any trade deal would leave us with less control over our own affairs a la Norway or switzerland,
Businesses would leave the UK for the EU.
Free movement of people is a net benefit for the UK.
The UK benefits from investment by the EU
The EU prevents russian influence from growing in ee
Paris would take the financial market from London if we left.
the relationship with the US would be harmed.
A vote to leave will likely trigger a new Scottish referendum which most polls predict would lead to a break up of the UK.
The ECHR's authority and the Human Rights act would likely be scrapped shortly after exit


Leave:
free movement of people has depressed wages and strained infrastructure as most migrants are low skilled and low paid.
The native working class cannot compete for wages as their living costs are higher than those with family in EE.
The vote to join in the 70s was made with the promise of trade union only and the Eu has explicitly become a political project.
The Uk representation has never successfully opposed a motion in the EU.
EU law has overridden UK government policy despite that government being elected
Britain pays more in than it gets out.
German leadership of the EU is wildly out of tune with public opinion.
The EU creates excessive red tape which is hurting british industry.
The UK is the EU's largest trading partner with a trade deficit which makes any trade war self defeating.
other countries have free trade agreements with the EU despite not being members (Canada, South Korea)
The executive of the Eu is unelected.
The CAP subsidises the French unfairly and prevents proper importing from the commonwealth of food which keeps food prices artificially high.
The ECHR's authority and the Human Rights act would likely be scrapped shortly after exit


The Battlelines:

Remain:
The labour party led by Jeremy Corbin who, in his youth, opposed the EU as being a Capitalist tool to keep workers down.
The SNP led by Nicola Sturgeon who have as an end goal an independent Scotland within the EU.
The Prime minister David Cameron and a portion of the Conservative party.

Exit:
UKIP- an explicitly right wing anti eu party led by Nigel Farage- notable for taking a significant share of the votes if not the seats in the last election.
Boris Johnson- mayor of London and one of the likely successors to Cameron. He is joined by another faction within the conservative party.
Assorted 'bennites' the remnant of the followers of the late Tony Benn on the left of british politics- this is where Corbyn had his origins.

Outside the politicians there is a split with unions, banks,and industry declaring both ways. The legal profession is likewise split however the inclination there is for the leave campaign. The Army and the Crown have not commented as is traditional.

The press is likewise split with the sun and mail backing out and the guardian backing in. the telegraph will likely tacitly back out.

Any discussion of UK politics online tends to include childish name calling 'little englanders, EUSSR, Camoron, Corbynazi etc etc'. I'd be obliged if we could avoid that- it adds nothing to what is an important debate.

What are your thoughts kiwis? in or out?

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Aside from that there is no meaningful way of holding the Council or commission to account for poor policy- esp if ones own Councillor is being voted against.

Ahem.

Perhaps it wont be the same should the union collapse but it's a factor worth considering. It's one of the only aspects keeping me In.

Not to mention the UK leaving the EU is Putin's wet dream.

 

[Vitriol]

Ahem.



Not to mention the UK leaving the EU is Putin's wet dream.

Yeah they resigned once due to allegations of corruption and pressure from the entire union, but that does not change the fact that the public of a nation cannot hold them to account for political decisions that have a negative effect.

The santer scandal was also uncovered by a whistleblower after the parliamentary committee refused to sign off- functional systems do not rely on whistleblowers.

In theory European elections are supposed to do this, but European voters seem to mostly treat EU elections as opportunities to send a message to national governments, not the EU government.

Anonimous's initial point did specify he was asking about how they are held accountable outside of parliamentary elections.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Yeah they resigned once due to allegations of corruption and pressure from the entire union, but that does not change the fact that the public of a nation cannot hold them to account for political decisions that have a negative effect.

And it's not supposed to. Commissioners don't represent their respective countries, they represent the EU as a whole so it makes sense for them to be censured by the European Parliament.

 

[Vitriol]

And it's not supposed to. Commissioners don't represent their respective countries, they represent the EU as a whole so it makes sense for them to be censured by the European Parliament.

Many people do not believe that is a satisfactory arrangement. The EU is a union of states. It is not at all unreasonable that some people hold the view it should be accounable to those states directly and not to parliamentary blocs which leave nations without representation in the majority bloc effectively without power.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Many people do not believe that is a satisfactory arrangement. The EU is a union of states. It is not at all unreasonable that some people hold the view it should be accounable to those states directly and not to parliamentary blocs which leave nations without representation in the majority bloc effectively without power.

I understand, but there is a place to represent national interest and it's called the Council.
The Commission represents the EU. The Parliament represents the people. This is how I see it.

 

[CWCissey]

Not to mention the UK leaving the EU is Putin's wet dream.

You're confusing the EU with NATO. That seems to be common for people with Remain tendencies.

 

[Vitriol]

I understand, but there is a place to represent national interest and it's called the Council.
The Commission represents the EU. The Parliament represents the people. This is how I see it.

This was true before the council moved to qualified majority voting. We are currently in the awkward position where those states who actually pay for the eu are in the minority and policy can be effectively controlled by the recipients. This is an extremely dangerous way to run an organisation.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

You're confusing the EU with NATO.

I'm not.

This was true before the coincil moved to qualified majority voting. We are currently in the awkward position where those states who actually pay for the eu are in the minority and policy can be effectively controlled by the recipients.

When was the last time that happened?

 

[CWCissey]

I'm not.

Yeah you are. The UK can impose it's own sanctions on Russia outside of the EU if it wishes, big woop. To be fair that's what would hurt them most seeing as a lot of Russian money passes through London.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Yeah you are. The UK can impose it's own sanctions on Russia outside of the EU if it wishes, big woop. To be fair that's what would hurt them most seeing as a lot of Russian money passes through London.

Yeah, IF it wishes.

 

[CWCissey]

Yeah, IF it wishes.

And you think that just because the UK would be out of the EU, it would instantly turn into a Russia loving state?

Because you've got to wait for Corbyn to get elected for that.

 

[Vitriol]

I'm not.



When was the last time that happened?

February negotiations on migration- both german and uk.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

And you think that just because the UK would be out of the EU, it would instantly turn into a Russia loving state?

No, not necessarily. But yes, I do believe that outside the EU, the UK would be less assertive against Russia. It would have nobody left to blame in bilateral contacts, for example. And it wouldn't have the EU's economic clout with it, which is really the only thing that matters. Not the military threat, because Russia knows NATO won't invade it.

February negotiations on migration- both german and uk.

German and UK what?

 

[CWCissey]

And it wouldn't have the EU's economic clout with it, which is really the only thing that matters.

It has a good chunk of it though.

 

[Vitriol]

No, not necessarily. But yes, I do believe that outside the EU, the UK would be less assertive against Russia. It would have nobody left to blame in bilateral contacts, for example. And it wouldn't have the EU's economic clout with it, which is really the only thing that matters. Not the military threat, because Russia knows NATO won't invade it.



German and UK what?

The germans requested a redistribution of refugees as they have over invited and despite the agreement not to hinder a nations national interest the idea was shut down. Then again when the uk attempted to negotiate changes to movement of people it was again shut down by eastern bloc nations- despite the fact that it is very clearly a major issue in uk politics atm.

Again with changes to rules surrounding benefits, germany, the uk, the netherlands
, denmark were all in favour but poland, hungary and friends shut the idea down.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

The germans requested a redistribution of refugees as they have over invited and despite the agreement not to hinder a nations national interest the idea was shut down.

Nobody wanted refugees. Germany accepted the role of the beating boy.
Also, the UK completely opted out from this thing. This entire discussion doesn't concern it. It is in a much better situation than many other EU countries.

Then again when the uk attempted to negotiate changes to movement of people it was again shut down by eastern bloc nations- despite the fact that it is very clearly a major issue in uk politics atm.
Again with changes to rules surrounding benefits, germany, the uk, the netherlands
, denmark were all in favour but poland, hungary and friends shut the idea down.

Fair points. However, in cases of free movement and benefits, I am sure Cameron will win some concessions before the referendum. I am with you on the benefits thing, mind you.

In other cases, like free circulation of services, countries like Poland are close allies with the UK. It's not a payer vs. receiver thing.

 

[Vitriol]

Nobody wanted refugees. Germany accepted the role of the beating boy.
Also, the UK completely opted out from this thing. This entire discussion doesn't concern it. It is in a much better situation than many other EU countries.



Fair points. However, in cases of free movement and benefits, I am sure Cameron will win some concessions before the referendum. I am with you on the benefits thing, mind you.

In other cases, like free circulation of services, countries like Poland are close allies with the UK. It's not a payer vs. receiver thing.

My point isnt to the merits of their arguements- i agree with you in both cases there. My point is that the eu is no longer accountable to national interests and this is a dangerous thing where the majority of members do not contribute a net.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

No, not necessarily. But yes, I do believe that outside the EU, the UK would be less assertive against Russia. It would have nobody left to blame in bilateral contacts, for example. And it wouldn't have the EU's economic clout with it, which is really the only thing that matters. Not the military threat, because Russia knows NATO won't invade it.

The UK isn't all that assertive against the Russians because it can easily monitor where the hell Russian money is flowing thanks to it usually going through UK banks, or UK offshore territories. There's more than one way to skin a cat by telling friends where the cash is flowing.

If you do believe that the UK will suddenly be less belligerent to Russia outside the EU, then you're honestly having a laugh. The Security Services have, since 1991, been pointing out endlessly that Russian FSB operatives are still an enormous problem and they need more funding to go back to traditional anti-russian activities.

The UK and Russia have been playing this game now for nearly two centuries and it hardly looks to be stopping if we were inside or outside the EU.

If anything, the UK could become much more belligerent because it would no longer be held back by Germany, who're usually the ones watering down sanctions against Russia because a staggering 36% of their natural gas, and they have refused to diversify their supply, is delivered from Russia. (The UK buys nothing of this sort from Russia, making it a lot harder for them to threaten us)

The EU's economic clout continues to dwindle and everyone knows it, because of the EU's protectionist nature we're losing out massively on this explosion world-wide. Right now trade agreements between numerous states that would benefit the UK more than others are stalled or even outright suspended because it has to be dealt with so the deals are fair on all 28 member states.

The EU-Japan deal is currently suspended indefinitely because various EU states cannot find enough of a benefit, meanwhile the UK who would benefit the most from an FTA with a country of 127 million people and the world's third largest economy sits with its thumb up its arse because someone in Bulgaria can't see the benefit.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Anonimous's initial point did specify he was asking about how they are held accountable outside of parliamentary elections.

Yeah, but that's kind of an unfair question, since it effectively asks "Aside from the main way they're accountable, how are they accountable?".

The EU-Japan deal is currently suspended indefinitely because various EU states cannot find enough of a benefit, meanwhile the UK who would benefit the most from an FTA with a country of 127 million people and the world's third largest economy sits with its thumb up its arse because someone in Bulgaria can't see the benefit.

Of course this assumes that Japan would be interested in a similarly comprehensive trade deal with the UK, which is quite questionable. Let's hope that people in Romford and people in Tokyo share the same rosy views about the UK's central role in the world economy, huh?

Still, it seems pretty clear that the consensus here is sternly anti-EU. The consensus in the UK as a whole seems to be more mixed. Rather than back-and-forthing over the merits, I wonder what it is that makes British Kiwis so much more Eurosceptic than British people as a whole? Not that it is inconceivable that the UK will vote to leave, but if people here were representative, it wouldn't even be close.

 

[Lorento]

Rather than back-and-forthing over the merits, I wonder what it is that makes British Kiwis so much more Eurosceptic than British people as a whole? Not that it is inconceivable that the UK will vote to leave, but if people here were representative, it wouldn't even be close.

I'd like to say that it's because people who post about this bullshit are more informed, perhaps they've done their research and come to a conclusion that they truly believe. But, and I say this as a sceptic myself, its probably just Autism.