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:
The other day on NPR they were talking about Fed Rate possibilities and some guy who used to live in the UK fifteen years ago but's been in the US since then was talking about how it was clearly just dumb to want to exit and nobody really wants it.
Shockingly he didn't get into any details explaining this view.
fifteen years is just before the eu expansion and resultant massive immigration.
 
The UK practically sucks our dick every time they get the chance and your PMs are always like pet poodles to our President.

537181541-british-prime-minister-harold-wilson-waving-gettyimages.jpg
 
The UK practically sucks our dick every time they get the chance and your PMs are always like pet poodles to our President.

I was trying to think of some witty rebuttal but then I realised that you were actually quite correct.

In any case, if a PM was to stand up to a US president and call him/her out on some bullshit, do you think that would actually make the PM look better to the average American?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Shokew
As an FYI, there was a period of very frosty relations between Thatcher and Regan we all tend to sweep under the carpet and forget about because those two acted more as partners and helped drive an end to the Cold War.

Thatcher was apocalyptic with fury when the US invaded Grenada without so much as a "by your leave" to the Commonwealth and UK, while Grenada had voted socialist it was fairly mild as places went and seemed still quite keen to remain a commonwealth member, with little interest in joining the Cold War fully.

Thatcher was reportedly ready to tear up the rental agreements for Ascension Island and Diego Garcia and it took a lot of back scene movements between London and Washington to cool her down and patch things up. Regan agreed not to pull such things again without informing the UK of US intentions.

The problem with the Regan/Thatcher partnership was the outside propaganda and myth surrounding it was just too good and on the surface both appeared very buddy buddy throughout even while panicked talks and heated discussions were being held.

This is the model that seared itself into a good couple of generations of US and UK politicians, the UK always has the US's back, and theoretically vice-versa.

Both states remain the main trading partners and investors of each other too, for example, and this is fairly unlikely to change EU-US trade treaty or not.

-----------------------------

As for the calls of it being "like the scottish referendum" I'm actually not so sure. The opinion polls actually pinwheel heavily back and forth at the moment, typically handing Leave a slight advantage, before handing remain a slight advantage much more consistently than the Scottish Referendum.

The current Poll of Polls doesn't seem to be taking into account the last couple of polls conducted which hand Leave a 3 point lead, outside the margin of error.
 
Anyone watching Andrew Neil's interviews this week?

Hillary Benn was first up today and did not do a great job, especially when it came to immigration where he first said migration is always good if said migrant has a job and pays tax and then for some reason just after made a vague threat that a points based system might increase migration rates because it did so in Australia where Andrew responded that's only because Australia's government wanted more migrants and they fit the criteria of migrant they wanted which Hillary didn't have much of a reply to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...l-interviews-leave-or-remain-1-hilary-benn-mp is a link to the first interview and the rest are on BBC 1 on the following days:

June 8th 7:30pm: George Osbourne

June 10th 7:30pm: Nigel Farage

June 17th 8:30pm: Iain Duncan Smith

Also tomorrow on ITV from 9 pm - 10 pm David Cameron is debating Nigel Farage which should be interesting. (Although David Cameron refused to do a head-vs-head kind of format)
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: CWCissey
Anyone watching Andrew Neil's interviews this week?

Hillary Benn was first up today and did not do a great job, especially when it came to immigration where he first said migration is always good if said migrant has a job and pays tax and then for some reason just after made a vague threat that a points based system might increase migration rates because it did so in Australia where Andrew responded that's only because Australia's government wanted more migrants and they fit the criteria of migrant they wanted which Hillary didn't have much of a reply to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...l-interviews-leave-or-remain-1-hilary-benn-mp is a link to the first interview and the rest are on BBC 1 on the following days:

June 8th 7:30pm: George Osbourne

June 10th 7:30pm: Nigel Farage

June 17th 8:30pm: Iain Duncan Smith

Also tomorrow on ITV from 9 pm - 10 pm David Cameron is debating Nigel Farage which should be interesting. (Although David Cameron refused to do a head-vs-head kind of format)

Everyone knows David Cameron should have been debating Boris Johnson.
 
It'd be nice to see something like Corbyn vs Boris, there has been so many Tory vs Tory debates in the media lately it's like Labour is a non entity despite being the main party of opposition.

Because in all honesty it is a non entity and doesn't make good television.

The broadcast media is more interested in the current generation of government intellects slugging it out and trying to relive the Tory party civil war of the 90s than wanting to interview a man who is the very definition of beige.

Never mind his ridiculously vile and incompetent shadow cabinet.

-----------------------------------------

So the Cameron vs Farage broadcast happened last night on ITV.

Farage actually acquitted himself well. He was still a little bombastic, that's simply his style, but he was more measured and ready with some better answers than a lot of folks expected. It seems he did heed some advice from the Leave.eu campaign and made ready with some answers than expected.

Farage was applauded after every nearly answer he gave, even when faced down with a black women who accused him of racism and then proceeded to mug and roll her eyes and interrupt Farage every time he tried to answer. Farage pointed out he'd prefer more migration from Commonwealth on the basis that they'd come from a shared heritage, legal code and language. (The woman continued to mug at the camera and shake her head even when he gave this answer)

He also struggled slightly over the issue of the UK's ageing population, and the potential of rising wages making us less competitive globally. Farage actually hit back that GDP wasn't everything and that we shouldn't be focused on keeping the rich, rich but by trying to ensure that more money went into the pockets of the hard working lower classes.

While his answers may not have been to everyone's cup of tea, he at least seemed to have a stab at answering them and the audience appeared to respect this, if not necessarily agree with him.

Cameron meanwhile found a frostier reception but was on good form, with his smooth confident delivery and statements that have made him a good PM up to this point.

However, when faced down by an Asian gent Cameron found his problems.

The man was the walking definition of a modern british everyman. Naturalized Asian (replete with RP accent) in his 40s, worked every day of his life since he was 16, 3 kids... and unable to get to the doctor's or even a house because migrant queue jumping was still blatantly going on, and the uncontrolled influx had caused his nice area to become a no go zone. Cameron waffled on about all sorts of stuff and warned against the "dice rolling" the Leave campaign was offering. The man hit back with "With respect, you've already rolled the dice by saying we should stay in."

Cameron did not receive much in the way of applause, largely I suspect because he didn't seem to want to answer the questions directly.
 
Overall I though the debate was pretty awful, like a poor mans Question Time, it was like some of the audience forgot it was a debate about the upcoming referendum and just talked about Farage and Cameron.

Looking forward to Andrew Neil questioning Farage, I think Nigel will struggle under pressure.

Also there is talk MPs would minimise or block a Brexit, even if it's voted for in the referendum - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...guerrilla-campaign-to-reverse-brexit-decision

So I guess Boris was right about a possible second referendum. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/22/boris-johnson-savaged-by-_n_9291608.html )
 
Also there is talk MPs would minimise or block a Brexit, even if it's voted for in the referendum - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...guerrilla-campaign-to-reverse-brexit-decision
I think that is a little like the queen taking direct control and appointing government herself or a leader of the hol becoming pm- theoretically possible due to the technical oddities of our system but practically impossible due to the public reaction to being ignored. It is a very typical 'handwringing' guardian article.

Iirc there was talk after 97 of thatcher challenging blair from the upper house but likewise it was never really going to happen.
 
Back