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]

So sounds like you agree with me then that there should really be a USE and a EAFTS?

Oh, but EFTA already exists and the UK was initially part of it, but left in early 1970s to become part of the EEC.

Regarding your previous post:

When I think of free trade, the first thing I think of isn't enacting a shitton of new laws for all sorts of tiny little things and creating the retarded monstrosity that is the ECHR.

As I already said in this thread, the ECHR is not an EU institution. This is no secret knowledge, this is elementary information for anyone who wishes to study and discuss Europe's political set-up. It boggles my mind how many people get it wrong.
And yeah, I agree with you - the DCFTA with Ukraine, the TTIP, the FTA with South Korea, the TISA and all other free trade agreements and customs unions concluded and still negotiated by the EU have nothing to do with free trade.

 

[Splendid]

As I already said in this thread, the ECHR is not an EU institution.

You've been told before that all members of the EU are required to accept the European Convention on Human rights, which requires accepting the authority of the European Court of Human rights. While the court isn't technically an EU institution, membership in one requires membership in the other, so yes, that questionably competent is in fact being forced upon member states. This is no secret knowledge, it is elementary information for anyone who wishes to study and discuss Europe's political setup.

And yeah, I agree with you - the DCFTA with Ukraine, the TTIP, the FTA with South Korea, the TISA and all other free trade agreements and customs unions concluded and still negotiated by the EU have nothing to do with free trade.

The UN has also called for online censorship and slavery reparations, as documented on this very forum, but I don't think anyone would really agree that that's the main focus of that international organization, because those two things are such a tiny part of what it does. The same applies to the EU, which spends much more time on legislation unrelated to free trade.
Besides, this thread is about the UK's position in the EU, and I think that the UK could do better in trade negotiations on its own than it can within the EU, where it is forced to obey insane EU standards such as the precautionary principle that prevents safe innovations from being introduced to consumers if a domestic interest group opposes them.
And all this is ignoring the fact that the UK has pissed almost nobody relevant off for decades, but the EU sure as hell has.

Oh, but EFTA already exists and the UK was initially part of it, but left in early 1970s to become part of the EEC.

I said at the very beginning of the thread that I was using that abbreviation to describe a theoretical organization that operates like NAFTA with European countries as members. The current EFTA is a tiny organization consisting of a few Nordic countries.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

You've been told before that all members of the EU are required to accept the European Convention on Human rights, which requires accepting the authority of the European Court of Human rights. While the court isn't technically an EU institution, membership in one requires membership in the other, so yes, that questionably competent is in fact being forced upon member states. This is no secret knowledge, it is elementary information for anyone who wishes to study and discuss Europe's political setup.

You phrased your message in a way that suggested that the EU set up the ECHR, which is not true. Next time be less emotional when you post.

The UN has also called for online censorship and slavery reparations, as documented on this very forum, but I don't think anyone would really agree that that's the main focus of that international organization, because those two things are such a tiny part of what it does. The same applies to the EU, which spends much more time on legislation unrelated to free trade.

Well, clearly, because a complete free trade area - a customs union, in fact - has been achieved within the EU several decades ago, which means new legislation isn't really necessary. What is necessary, however, is legislation on issues that can be disruptive to the functioning of the EU's internal market.
Also, I'd be very interested to know where you have your EU legislative statistics from.

Besides, this thread is about the UK's position in the EU, and I think that the UK could do better in trade negotiations on its own than it can within the EU, where it is forced to obey insane EU standards such as the precautionary principle that prevents safe innovations from being introduced to consumers if a domestic interest group opposes them.

Both things are unrelated and wrong.
The negotiating position when it comes to trade depends on the size of a country's economy. If you believe that Britain alone will have more leverage in trade negotiations vis-a-vis the US, for example, than the EU as a single economic bloc (and this is how the EU does international trade negotiations), you are delusional.
Regarding technical standards, if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU after it leaves, it will have to abide by all those standards anyway. Except it will no longer have any say in decision-making in this respect. Something that Norwegians have increasingly more problems with.

And all this is ignoring the fact that the UK has pissed almost nobody relevant off for decades, but the EU sure as hell has.

I said at the very beginning of the thread that I was using that abbreviation to describe a theoretical organization that operates like NAFTA with European countries as members. The current EFTA is a tiny organization consisting of a few Nordic countries.

Has it occured to you that there is a reason why very few countries are happy with an EFTA-style integration? What are you going to do, travel around European capitals and tell everyone that they are wrong?

 

[Splendid]

You phrased your message in a way that suggested that the EU set up the ECHR, which is not true.

Next time be less emotional when you post.

Seriously, unless you're somehow some sort of magical anti-autist who's so empathetic that he can read my emotional state through a forum post, maybe don't tell me that I'm being emotional.
Unless you're just projecting, lol.

Well, clearly, because a complete free trade area - a customs union, in fact - has been achieved within the EU several decades ago, which means new legislation isn't really necessary. What is necessary, however, is legislation on issues that can be disruptive to the functioning of the EU's internal market.

Legislating on issues that can be disruptive to an internal market is different from legislating on issues that are disruptive to an internal market, and that is in turn different from legislating on whatever the hell a parliament feels like. The EU seems to mostly focus on the last two.

Both things are unrelated and wrong.
The negotiating position when it comes to trade depends on the size of a country's economy. If you believe that Britain alone will have more leverage in trade negotiations vis-a-vis the US, for example, than the EU as a single economic bloc (and this is how the EU does international trade negotiations), you are delusional.

There's a lot more that goes into trade negotiations than sheer size, such as geographic positions, politics, history, a country's national resources and economic specialties, etc.

Regarding technical standards, if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU after it leaves, it will have to abide by all those standards anyway. Except it will no longer have any say in decision-making in this respect. Something that Norwegians have increasingly more problems with.

You're British, right? Look over to your nearest electrical outlet. It it has a built in fuse (not seen in continental Europe) and a completely different shape. And you guys also drive on a different side of the road from most of the world, imperial units are still in common use in many applications, etc. I could go on, but it doesn't matter. The UK has never given much of a fuck about technical standards from the EU.
The actual reality of most new technical standards is that there's one that matters and everyone uses that one, whether the issuing body be the EU, ISO, IEEE , W3C, a private company, etc. The rest for any given area tend to fall by the wayside.
Also, the EU has been known to introduce technical standards that conflict with those used in the rest of the world, such as creating a larger intermodal container to better fit the custom palette size that they invented for no real reason. There was really no good excuse for this retarded idea in the first place.
And as I said before, eliminating the precautionary principle would also save a ton of money. Others in the thread have backed me up on this.
By the way, other countries trade with the EU despite having no say in its technical standards. If South Africa and New Zealand can pull it off, the UK can.

Has it occured to you that there is a reason why very few countries are happy with an EFTA-style integration?

It seems like at least the UK might be happier with that sort of arrangement than the EU as it is today.

What are you going to do, travel around European capitals and tell everyone that they are wrong?

You are aware that you're posting in a subforum for posting your opinions on news, events, and politics, right? Of course I'm going to do this.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Legislating on issues that can be disruptive to an internal market is different from legislating on issues that are disruptive to an internal market, and that is in turn different from legislating on whatever the hell a parliament feels like. The EU seems to mostly focus on the last two.

Examples, please.

There's a lot more that goes into trade negotiations than sheer size, such as geographic positions, politics, history, a country's national resources and economic specialties, etc.

In terms of geographic position, Britian's greatest advantage is being part of the EU's internal market. It doesn't have that many resources, "politics" is a vary vague term and history is completely irrelevant when money is involved.

You're British, right? Look over to your nearest electrical outlet. It it has a built in fuse (not seen in continental Europe) and a completely different shape. And you guys also drive on a different side of the road from most of the world, imperial units are still in common use in many applications, etc. I could go on, but it doesn't matter.

You are absolutely right. It doesn't matter because none of this has ever been an obstruction to the UK's trade with the rest of the EU. Everything you've said also applies to Ireland. Why don't they have those issues?

The UK has never given much of a fuck about technical standards from the EU.

It has. Electrical outlets are not "technical standards". EU legislation on this issue changed significantly in the 1980s when it actually used to be how you say. Since then the logic has changed completely and now EU internal market directives only lay out general, minimum requirements and each EU member state is free to do whatever it wants as long as those requirements are kept. That means that it doesn't matter what shape your socket is, what matters is that it is manufactured in such a way as to not electrocute its users. If you choose to manufacture electrical outlets in a different shape or cars with the steering wheel on the right side then it will only be your own problem when you try to export those things, because you will need to make certain adaptations (which will make your products less competitive).

Also, the EU has been known to introduce technical standards that conflict with those used in the rest of the world, such as creating a larger intermodal container to better fit the custom palette size that they invented for no real reason. There was really no good excuse for this retarded idea in the first place.

The sheer importance of the EU for global trade means that the EU can do it unilaterally and other countries need to adapt in one way or another. Also, if there had really been no excuse for this idea, it wouldn't have been adopted. That's not how the EU works.

By the way, other countries trade with the EU despite having no say in its technical standards. If South Africa and New Zealand can pull it off, the UK can.

Fair enough, if that's Britain level of ambitions. Also, it's very interesting that you're bringing up NZ whose PM actually said that "If we had the equivalent of the EU on our doorstep … we certainly wouldn't be looking to leave it."

 

[Vitriol]

Surely there is an important distinction between whether the EU is better at negotiating in British interests than the UK can itself and just its general negotiating power.

It probably is a stronger negotiater in a crude sense but imo this is diluted by the myriad different and competing national interests it has to try and represent.

 

[CWCissey]

Surely there is an important distinction between whether the EU is better at negotiating in British interests than the UK can itself and just its general negotiating power.

It probably is a stronger negotiater in a crude sense but imo this is diluted by the myriad different and competing national interests it has to try and represent.

Well a lot of things that Britain wants are usually shot down by the EU, as it's an all or nothing vote, everyone has to agree, and pretty much the only countries that consistently stick up for us are Hungary and sometimes the Czech Republic, The two other big fish, France and Germany, usually hinder us, you just need to look at the 'success tax' last year where the UK had to pay the most, whereas France and Germany got the biggest rebates, just because our economy was working.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Well a lot of things that Britain wants are usually shot down by the EU, as it's an all or nothing vote, everyone has to agree,

95% of EU laws are adopted by majority voting, with the preceeding gruelling negotiations that aim at taking national concerns into account to a great a degree as possible, so the voting is basically a formality. Unless the idea of negotiations with other countries as equals is so abhorrent to you.
And yes, sometimes "the EU" (whatever that is supposed to be anyway, because "the EU" is not a monolith and if it is, then the UK is just as well part of it as any other country) strikes down British ideas and sometimes Britain strikes down things it doesn't like, as it was the case with the working time directive. This is how it is for the UK and for any other EU country. The UK is being a special snowflake EU tumblrina at this point.

The two other big fish, France and Germany, usually hinder us, you just need to look at the 'success tax' last year where the UK had to pay the most, whereas France and Germany got the biggest rebates, just because our economy was working.

Yeah, France and Germany totally didn't follow the UK when it was the leading force in imposing EU sanctions against Iran in the 2009/2010 crisis.
Also, when it comes to rebates, the UK really shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

[Jack Haywood]

I honestly believe the idea of being in a political union in and of itself is unjustifiable and ridiculous. Britain didn't need the EU before, so why are Remainers desperate to keep the country in? As it stands, there are THREE FUCKING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. Local, national and supernational.

(Not sure whether the UN counts, but countries like Arabia seem to get away with crimes while under it, so I won't classify it as a 4th level.)

As a libertarian, this is seriously jarring to me. Why not stick with just two levels? I admit the EU were willing to help the country out via the European Social Fund and free school milk and shit and I ain't ungrateful for that, but those could have just as easily been done without them... I don't see the point.

 

[AnOminous]

I honestly believe the idea of being in a political union in and of itself is unjustifiable and ridiculous. Britain didn't need the EU before, so why are Remainers desperate to keep the country in? As it stands, there are THREE FUCKING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. Local, national and supernational.

(Not sure whether the UN counts, but countries like Arabia seem to get away with crimes while under it, so I won't classify it as a 4th level.)

Whether international law (in your "4th level" sense) is even law is a topic for another thread (though "Austinian handicap" is a good phrase to start with), but I think we can agree that if it has no effective enforcement, it is not government.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

That's a very interesting aspect of discussion on the EU that rightists think it is "socialist" while leftist think it's "neo-liberal".

A lot of people dislike the EU simply because they are nationalists. Of course if you are a British nationalist and a socialist you likely believe that the UK invented socialism and had capitalism imposed from the outside by cackling multinational corporations, while if you're a British nationalist and a capitalist you believe that continentals are all lazy socialists who want to destroy the value of British hard work because they're jealous. In other words, people are not good at disentangling their own beliefs.

And yes, sometimes "the EU" strikes down British ideas and sometimes Britain strikes down things it doesn't like, as it was the case with the working time directive

Yes, but if it's a British idea, it is by definition better than anything Johnny Foreigner might come up with.

Come on man, didn't you go to school in the 1920s like the rest of us?

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Whether international law (in your "4th level" sense) is even law is a topic for another thread (though "Austinian handicap" is a good phrase to start with), but I think we can agree that if it has no effective enforcement, it is not government.

EU laws are binding and in many cases have direct applicability and direct effect. If effective enforcement is a criterion for you, then yes, the EU does have a government. Rivers of British (and that of other nations) anal blood have been spilled over EU court of justice verdicts. And yes, they have been enforced. Some of the most famous cases (don't concern Britain, but it's EU law 101):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewe-Zentral_AG_v_Bundesmonopolverwaltung_für_Branntwein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot

 

[AnOminous]

EU laws are binding and in many cases have direct applicability and direct effect. If effective enforcement is a criterion for you, then yes, the EU does have a government. Rivers of British (and that of other nations) anal blood have been spilled over EU court of justice verdicts. And yes, they have been enforced. Some of the most famous cases (don't concern Britain, but it's EU law 101):

I specifically referred to the previous post, where his "third level" was supranational (EU) and "fourth level" was international law in general.

 

[Vitriol]

And yes, sometimes "the EU" (whatever that is supposed to be anyway, because "the EU" is not a monolith and if it is, then the UK is just as well part of it as any other country) strikes down British ideas and sometimes Britain strikes down things it doesn't like, as it was the case with the working time directive. This is how it is for the UK and for any other EU country. The UK is being a special snowflake EU tumblrina at this point.

Nobody disputes how the EU works or alleges the UK has no influence- just less influence over its own trade and laws than if it was independent. If the UK believes its own national interests are not being met by the EU then it should absolutely be asking for renegotiations and re evaluating whether it wants to be a member.

I don't know about being a 'special snowflake' but the UK, even with its rebate is a net contributor to the EU, one of only 9 such states in the union. As our political power in the union does not reflect our financial contribution i don't think its at all tumblresque to be demanding different treatment from states which do not contribute and yet have an equal say.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

As our political power in the union does not reflect our financial contribution i don't think its at all tumblresque to be demanding different treatment from states which do not contribute and yet have an equal say.

Is it axiomatic that financial contributions should be the basis for political weight?

 

[Vitriol]

Is it axiomatic that financial contributions should be the basis for political weight?

not at all, but its a perfectly reasonable view to take and dismissing concerns based on it as 'snowflake syndrome' is gross hyperbole and flippant to the point of retarding discussion.

Yes, but if it's a British idea, it is by definition better than anything Johnny Foreigner might come up with.

Come on man, didn't you go to school in the 1920s like the rest of us?

I think its more if a british politician makes an unpopular decision that harms uk interests they can be held accountable by the british people, if an EU decision is made which harms uk interests it is much harder for the british public to hold it accountable- esp if it benefits the rest of the union. EU Fishing regulations and the factortame cases are the obvious example of this.

 

[AnOminous]

I think its more if a british politician makes an unpopular decision that harms uk interests they can be held accountable by the british people, if an EU decision is made which harms uk interests it is much harder for the british public to hold it accountable- esp if it benefits the rest of the union. EU Fishing regulations and the factortame cases are the obvious example of this.

I doubt the UK is unique in this lack of accountability, though. It seems all these governments can simply kick sticky political questions "upstairs" to the EU, where possible, and then deny any responsibility for what those bad EU people did that they had nothing to do with, honest.

This is why it can't really work as a federalist structure in the way, say, the U.S. government does, because at least in theory, those federal government officials are just as accountable (to the entire nation) as state elected officials are to the citizens of that state.

Exactly how do actual citizens hold the EU itself accountable, outside the European Parliament elections, which only cover the legislative functions?

 

[Vitriol]

I doubt the UK is unique in this lack of accountability, though. It seems all these governments can simply kick sticky political questions "upstairs" to the EU, where possible, and then deny any responsibility for what those bad EU people did that they had nothing to do with, honest.

This is why it can't really work as a federalist structure in the way, say, the U.S. government does, because at least in theory, those federal government officials are just as accountable (to the entire nation) as state elected officials are to the citizens of that state.

Exactly how do actual citizens hold the EU itself accountable, outside the European Parliament elections, which only cover the legislative functions?

In theory the EU as an entity is part of the ECHR so their remedy for most actions would be tenuos appeals to the ECJ but that is only for things that are actually illegal. 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.

 

[JU 199]

I think it's worthwhile taking a long-term view. What would happen to the continent without us? I worry the union could crumble and the continent could slip back into quasi-fascism. I probably would have voted to leave a year ago but the thorough incompetence of the liberals is leaving a power vacuum. I know it might a little far fetched but Europe has only been at a general peace for around 70 years. That's not very long at all and the past is mostly war.

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.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Aside from that there is no meaningful way of holding the Council or commission to account for poor policy.

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.

I know it might a little far fetched but Europe has only been at a general peace for around 70 years. That's not very long at all and the past is mostly war.

I think this is the major achievement of the EU that is often overlooked. Preventing wars in Europe has always been one of the EU's central goals (and the goals of its predecessor organisations such as the European Coal and Steel Community) and it's forgotten ironically because it's been so successful. The last time there was a comparable period in European history without war between the major powers was the 50 year peace between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean war, and it could be argued that that 'peace' was due to most of the European great powers being consumed with internal disorder, which they're obviously not right now.

Again, though, this achievement is less resonant to British nationalists.