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?
 
Last edited:
Your post has actually put me in a complete state of doubt. I was already in a complete state of doubt, but this just crystallized it.

As much as people hate lawyers, perhaps for good reason, a post like this really demonstrates the "thinking like a lawyer" concept.

You very succinctly capsulized an incredibly complex issue without judging the numerous arguments for and against it, simply presenting them.

I still have no solid opinion. My Anglophilic tendencies cause me to think fuck the EU, what have they done for anything at all?

Then I think that things like the ECHR actually beckon toward a future where human rights actually have real protections.

Then I think that the EU idea of "human rights" seems to include, these days, the right not to be offended, and there is no such right.

This may be superficial, but ISTR freedom of speech is buried somewhere like in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, like some kind of fucking afterthought. In Murrica, that is the FIRST fucking Amendment. It is considered the absolute bulwark of freedom against goddamn everything.

So I'm pretty ambivalent even about that ECHR thing.

And then, there's the whole fuck the French thing. I'm in for that.

Then there's local stuff like the potential breakup of the UK itself. That would suck but I don't really care about it.

I still slightly tend toward the stay option, but the UK should preserve its options and retain the ability to threaten to leave, but without actually doing it.

ETA: Also what's your opinion. I just noticed I couldn't tell from your post. If you're deliberately reserving opinion, I'll get that.
 
Your post has actually put me in a complete state of doubt. I was already in a complete state of doubt, but this just crystallized it.

As much as people hate lawyers, perhaps for good reason, a post like this really demonstrates the "thinking like a lawyer" concept.

You very succinctly capsulized an incredibly complex issue without judging the numerous arguments for and against it, simply presenting them.

I still have no solid opinion. My Anglophilic tendencies cause me to think fuck the EU, what have they done for anything at all?

Then I think that things like the ECHR actually beckon toward a future where human rights actually have real protections.

Then I think that the EU idea of "human rights" seems to include, these days, the right not to be offended, and there is no such right.

This may be superficial, but ISTR freedom of speech is buried somewhere like in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, like some kind of fucking afterthought. In Murrica, that is the FIRST fucking Amendment. It is considered the absolute bulwark of freedom against goddamn everything.

So I'm pretty ambivalent even about that ECHR thing.

And then, there's the whole fuck the French thing. I'm in for that.

Then there's local stuff like the potential breakup of the UK itself. That would suck but I don't really care about it.

I still slightly tend toward the stay option, but the UK should preserve its options and retain the ability to threaten to leave, but without actually doing it.

ETA: Also what's your opinion. I just noticed I couldn't tell from your post. If you're deliberately reserving opinion, I'll get that.
I haven't made up my mind yet.

On one hand I went to the doctors last week and was told there was a 3 week wait- this is far too long and never used to be the case. Its a typical example of the strain free movement has put on our infrastructure and while greater investment would solve the problem I already pay 40% tax and am not keen to see that increase. The legal benefits to the Eu and ECHR are imo overrated- the UK gov has already sidestepped freedom of speech with its ridiculous hate speech laws.

On the other hand I think there is a good chance leaving would harm us economically and uncertainty is definitely bad for the market. the current Eu is dominated by the centre left and federalists (centre left from a british perspective, im aware merkel etc are technically on the right) however were it controlled by a more rightwing less federal bloc i think the UK would enjoy it more. The commission's work in consumer protection and fearlessness in standing up to monopolies is also underrated. I also own property and make a fortune renting it out.

Ideally I would like to remain in the EU with an end to the freedom of movement- I don't buy the argument that freedom of movement is vital to free trade when movement of services is not. I think rather freedom of movement is in the interest of the majority of the poorer states and in line with the ideologies of many of the governments that oversaw the expansion ten years ago whereas free movement of services would have seen the UK's insurance and commercial banks devour their continental counterparts.

There is an arrogance to the EU i despise, but an optimism and determination I admire. It isn't a simple issue and I haven't yet decided how I will vote.
 
The most important thing for me (even as someone who would happily vote to leave) is not the result, but rather that the public got a vote. Fuck me sideways, I think Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have idiotic policies, but I agree with them on the simple fact that the British Public has never had a referendum on the European Union. We wanted to stay in the EEC back in the 1970s, but now things have become far closer than I believe many Brits want it to be.
 
Granted I'm not on the street there, but on the onlines I don't think I've ever run into anybody who ever said "and so that's why I'm really happy that we're part of the EU here in England".
 
There is an arrogance to the EU i despise, but an optimism and determination I admire. It isn't a simple issue and I haven't yet decided how I will vote.

Thanks.

And by thanks, I mean goddamn you.

You did convince me, though, that my opinion that I have no idea whatsoever about whether this is a good idea is, in fact, probably about the right attitude to have.
 
EU should be stripped down to preserve the system of arbitration (remember, this is Europe we're talking about), and be somewhat similar to the Articles of Confederation (all these states do NOT need an overbearing federal government). It's roles would be:
  1. Require an arbitration case before all member states, with war being an absolute last resort (UN already kind of does this), violation of such would make the Treaty of Versailles look like potatoes
  2. Compel member states to follow treaties (UN DOESN'T normally do this), threat of force would only be used against unusually belligerent states, sanctions would be the normal go-to
  3. Facilitate interstate commerce agreements (ex. tariffs, import duties, etc.), but allow member states to set their own terms
  4. Set a universal extradition agreement for all member states (this actually helps build trust between states)
  5. Allow freedom of travel between member states, contingent upon valid proof of identification (there would not be an "EU-ID card", however)
  6. Call upon reserve forces to protect the integrity of the euro-region in times of immediate emergency, otherwise the call must be approved by a majority vote (>50%), additionally, it would also handle the coordination of forces with foreign states (ex. US/NATO members)
  7. Establish a Department of Directives that allows member states to adopt policies (ex. reduction of carbon dioxide output) voted in by a supermajority (>66%), however, ratification would be entirely voluntary, and violation would only result in being "dropped" from the list of ratifiers
Okay, so there are somewhat restrictive terms contained within here, but I feel like this has way less overhead than the EU, gives it some force to answer "you and what army?", without being a drag on member states.
 
It's about time. The union has changed so much in the past 35 years, this was long overdue.

I'm not sure how I'll vote either. Something that does matter to me (beyond the migrant crisis) is the miss treatment of Greece. That nation has been thoroughly abused by the EC and the rest of the troika. Nearly every policy applied to the that country has been ill thought out and poorly implemented, with little concern to the people of Greece. The nation is little more than a debt colony now.

I don't want to be in a position of weakness around people capable of doing that. On the other hand we would be isolated politically if we left.

  • Require an arbitration case before all member states, with war being an absolute last resort (UN already kind of does this), violation of such would make the Treaty of Versailles look like potatoes
  • Compel member states to follow treaties (UN DOESN'T normally do this), threat of force would only be used against unusually belligerent states, sanctions would be the normal go-to
  • Facilitate interstate commerce agreements (ex. tariffs, import duties, etc.), but allow member states to set their own terms
  • Set a universal extradition agreement for all member states (this actually helps build trust between states)
  • Allow freedom of travel between member states, contingent upon valid proof of identification (there would not be an "EU-ID card", however)
  • Call upon reserve forces to protect the integrity of the euro-region in times of immediate emergency, otherwise the call must be approved by a majority vote (>50%), additionally, it would also handle the coordination of forces with foreign states (ex. US/NATO members)
  • Establish a Department of Directives that allows member states to adopt policies (ex. reduction of carbon dioxide output) voted in by a supermajority (>66%), however, ratification would be entirely voluntary, and violation would only result in being "dropped" from the list of ratifiers

I would also argue that the EU's human rights commission is a net plus. Not perfect but It's always reassuring to think there's another set of eyes on a nations political freedoms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I live in Freedom land so I am by no means an expert, but I feel as if, for better or worse, Brexit would be the beginning of the end for the EU. One of the major economic/military powers of Europe pulling out, combined with rising nationalist tendency across Europe and especially in the V4 group, could spell disaster for the EU.
 
EU should be stripped down to preserve the system of arbitration (remember, this is Europe we're talking about), and be somewhat similar to the Articles of Confederation (all these states do NOT need an overbearing federal government). It's roles would be:
  1. Require an arbitration case before all member states, with war being an absolute last resort (UN already kind of does this), violation of such would make the Treaty of Versailles look like potatoes
  2. Compel member states to follow treaties (UN DOESN'T normally do this), threat of force would only be used against unusually belligerent states, sanctions would be the normal go-to
  3. Facilitate interstate commerce agreements (ex. tariffs, import duties, etc.), but allow member states to set their own terms
  4. Set a universal extradition agreement for all member states (this actually helps build trust between states)
  5. Allow freedom of travel between member states, contingent upon valid proof of identification (there would not be an "EU-ID card", however)
  6. Call upon reserve forces to protect the integrity of the euro-region in times of immediate emergency, otherwise the call must be approved by a majority vote (>50%), additionally, it would also handle the coordination of forces with foreign states (ex. US/NATO members)
  7. Establish a Department of Directives that allows member states to adopt policies (ex. reduction of carbon dioxide output) voted in by a supermajority (>66%), however, ratification would be entirely voluntary, and violation would only result in being "dropped" from the list of ratifiers
Okay, so there are somewhat restrictive terms contained within here, but I feel like this has way less overhead than the EU, gives it some force to answer "you and what army?", without being a drag on member states.
This is comparatively much closer to the old EEC. Which might well be a good thing.

I do think that model misses out on not having the competition department of the Commission though, It has stood out in being unafraid to disrupt monopolies and punish anti consumer practice. It is because of the dpt that steam has refunds, microsoft didn't crash the tech industry to break apple in the 2000's, all the oil in the north sea isn't held by one company, android chargers were standardised, BA didn't merge with most of europe's arms companies in the 90s and a whole range of other things.

Of course the commision is also the source of the worst of the EU's bureaucracy and technocratic tendencies.

As I said earlier I haven't made up my mind yet so just playing Devils Advocate!
 
I'm a clueless American here, but if the UKIP is in favor of it, that's gotta mean it's a bad idea, right? Or is this like a stopped watch being right twice a day?
Getting the UK to leave the EU is pretty much the only reason UKIP (The UK Independence Party) exist and why they've become so popular, nobody really cares about their other policies, if you asked the average UK person about UKIP the only two things they'd know is they are for Britain leaving the EU and have Nigel Farage as their leader.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ferls
I've said it elsewhere, but to reiterate here, this is an American's perspective, albeit one who's interested in the issue:

The EU should really be two seperate organizations. To put it in an American context, some groups, like Benelux, want a United States of Europe. And others want a European version of NAFTA, which I'll call EAFTA.
When most western European countries signed on, they were signing up for something that was much closer to EAFTA. In fact, the earliest version of the EU was known as the European Coal and Steel Community, and it limited itself to just that (and it also had a far superior flag.)
What you have now is people trying to make a USE out of all of these different countries with different cultures, different political systems, different languages, and in many cases, ongoing political tensions. Europe as it is simply cannot function as a federation. The US gives individual states a lot of rights for a modern federation, but individual states are remarkably homogeneous compared to European countries, and the US federal government is much stronger than what I suspect your average Europhile politician would be willing to openly support for Europe (although behind closed doors they might.) Meanwhile, the EU has also expanded way too far east. Now there are a bunch of different countries that are not all at the same level of development being shoved into one political unit. It's just not feasible. However, a trade union where there are large cultural and economic differences is feasible. Once again, just look at NAFTA.

Also, the EU has gotten into a nasty habit of inventing new human rights out of thin air and then "balancing" them against real ones. This is how we get bullshit like them trying to push for websites respect to people's "right to disappear" by demanding that they remove material about people invoking said right, even though that violates the right to free speech, which is a real real actual right. And don't get me started on their blatant protectionism that they try to justify with the bullshit unscientific "precautionary principle." They'd rather that the poor have to pay higher food prices than expose their farmers to international competition.
 
Recent polling-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/icm-poll-gives-brexit-two-point-lead-2016-3
POLL: Brexit is on
A new poll shows support for Britain leaving the EU now stands at 43% – that's 2% ahead of support for remaining in. The ICM poll of 2,000 people was carried out over the weekend, andonce again shows that a Brexit is becoming the more likely outcome when voters go to the polls on June 23.

https://www.rt.com/uk/335833-brexit-poll-leave-referendum/
52% of Britons support Brexit – poll
A new poll conducted by ORB shows a narrow lead for Brexit campaigners, as the majority of the public lean toward leaving the European Union.
The survey, commissioned by the Daily Telegraph, found that 52 percent of Brits back a Brexit while 45 percent support remaining in the EU.

Some 3 percent of voters are still undecided about how to vote in the referendum, which will be held in just under 100 days, on June 23.

ORB published their results based on “
likely voters
,” after asking those polled if they intend to vote in the upcoming plebiscite.


And this happened-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...exit-campaign-employs-eu-migrants-arron-banks
Ukip-backed Brexit campaign employs EU migrants to rally support
Leave.EU accused of hypocrisy after call centre overseen by donor Arron Banks hires four non-British phone bank workers
The Ukip-backed campaign to pull Britain out of the EU has recruited EU migrants to staff its call centre despite telling voters such low-skilled workers “deprive British citizens of jobs”.

Leave.EU employs four phone bank staff from EU countries including Slovakia. Their job is to rally voters across the UK to back Brexit. The appointments come despite Leave.EU claiming that “as the world’s fifth biggest economy, the UK is well placed to supply its own labour”.

Arron Banks, the campaign’s major donor who oversees the call centre operation from his Bristol offices, has told the Guardian: “I don’t feel any affinity towards French, Germans and Spaniards. I’d much rather deal with my own kith and kin.”

The remain campaign accused Leave.EU of “double standards beyond parody”.
 
I'd like for us to remain within the EU, especially now that Cameron has effectively sealed the revised membership deal. Despite having an exceptionally cogent opening post (nicely written, Vitriol), I have yet to see anything that is an actually convincing argument to leave.

Departure from the EU is not going to solve the immigration trends that the media sensationalises so fervently - I genuinely fail to see how an illegal immigrant is going to suddenly sit up and take notice because the path for legal immigration has been made inordinately tougher.

Most of the loonier rulings handed down as EU-endorsed regulations are typically brought about by trade protectionism politicking anyway - a prime example is the oft-ridiculed curvature of bananas rule, which was actually proposed and pushed through as a direct result of pressure from the UK, because Fyffes (pretty much the biggest banana plantation owner in the world) wanted to lock in their monopoly on the European market.
 
I genuinely fail to see how an illegal immigrant is going to suddenly sit up and take notice because the path for legal immigration has been made inordinately tougher.
as far as the hysteria re calais lorry jumpers i think your right. But the immigration of low skilled workers and their families in large numbers from the eastern EU could certainly be stopped and it is this immigration that is currently causing the strains on public resources/suppression of wages.
Most of the loonier rulings handed down as EU-endorsed regulations are typically brought about by trade protectionism politicking anyway - a prime example is the oft-ridiculed curvature of bananas rule, which was actually proposed and pushed through as a direct result of pressure from the UK, because Fyffes (pretty much the biggest banana plantation owner in the world) wanted to lock in their monopoly on the European market.
I agree with you re the source of the eu more crazy rulings however an important distinction, in my view, between the EU cocking things up and a national government is how much harder it is to hold to account.

Still playing devils advocate as I haven't yet made up my mind, but i'm leaning ever more towards out.
 
Back