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:
LfZ0DUN.jpg


If I remember correctly, this was but a few days after one of the Paris terrorist attacks of the last year, in response to the awful racist "backlash" the awful french had against the poor innocent muslims. Watching this smug, rat-faced limey cunt literally cheer on population replacement in the wake of 100+ of my people being massacred by fanatics (that classy last picture, very apropros) decided me on never watching, giving views, or monetarily contributing in any way to anything he's involved in, ever again.
 
LfZ0DUN.jpg


If I remember correctly, this was but a few days after one of the Paris terrorist attacks of the last year, in response to the awful racist "backlash" the awful french had against the poor innocent muslims. Watching this smug, rat-faced limey cunt literally cheer on population replacement in the wake of 100+ of my people being massacred by fanatics (that classy last picture, very apropros) decided me on never watching, giving views, or monetarily contributing in any way to anything he's involved in, ever again.

Gotta drum up controversy somehow, he knows he doesn't have it in him to be the next Stewart. Good on him for pulling the trigger on his career even faster. :story:
 
So based on the result it has occurred to me that the main reason Kiwi Farms is so anti-EU.

I don't believe many of us are London based.

So few places in England and Wales voted to Remain in the EU. I'm from the midlands, @CWCissey is a Mancurian and various others, I'm guessing, are from very "non-London" bits of the UK. while @Vitriol and @Curt Sibling are both North of the border I'm going to have a stab and guess that other Remainers here on the site are also from Scotland or a metro-leaning area.

Oh, another fun fact: If the 382 counting areas had operated on first Past the Post like most of our elections the result would've been 68.8% Leave!

I'm from the midlands too, round Birmingham way. We were a pretty even spilt, but leave won in the end.

Why is John Oliver someone that people refer to as a meaningful entity? I was always under the impression that he was a thoroughly mediocre comedian. I've seen him on Mock The Week once or twice, and found him to be quite remarkably insipid, but honestly didn't think that he'd ever be in any danger of acquiring relevance - what changed?

He's one of the few British people doing current events for Americans (the only one maybe) so I guess they assume he's able to represent the entirety of Europe.
 
I'm from the midlands too, round Birmingham way. We were a pretty even spilt, but leave won in the end.

Yeah Greater Manchester was pretty split, only 3 wards voted Remain, I'm in one of the Leaves, but it wasn't a resounding Leave, pretty close.
 
Yeah Greater Manchester was pretty split, only 3 wards voted Remain, I'm in one of the Leaves, but it wasn't a resounding Leave, pretty close.

Yeah, it was super close here too, and things haven't exactly been great in the city cus of it, (mind you, when is it ever)

Still the twitter salt was fun.
O1tNoQD.png
vFnwdpi.png
O6570wp.png
 
https://kiwifarms.net/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FO6570wp.png&hash=b9a3633008f37e2e2c1c2497d152f284

"Yeah lets shave off parts of the country we dont like!"

We need Spitting Image back, they were truly neutral.

It was before my time but I still watch bits and pieces of it.

Where did all the good satire go? :\
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Feels
Reactions: Pickle Inspector
"Yeah lets shave off parts of the country I we like!"



It was before my time but I still watch bits and pieces of it.

Where did all the good satire go? :\

Cherie Blair complained about it because she couldn't accept that she's funny looking, so Tony used his influence to get it canned.

HIGNFY just became heavily biased towards the Left Wing after 2010 and Ian Hislop and Paul Merton let it happen because they no longer give a shit.

Mock The Week is just stand up Comedians practising their acts.

Newzoids is pretty funny, but very hit and miss. There WILL be a second series apparently, as they've announced some of the new puppets (Donald Trump being one of them), now would be a great time to have that back, especially seeing as they went to the effort of making a Corbyn puppet, it'd be a shame to see that wasted.
 
Even a half-assed one would be better than nothing.

There is a halfassed plan on their website. Its attached to this post.

It's more like a wish list but they do have something. It's more then fucking osbourn has.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
  • Informative
Reactions: Adamska
I'm not sure if that document is the official leave plan BUT there is an interesting few paragraphs in the area that concludes the immigration argument

7.9 A comprehensive immigration policy

Putting the arguments in the chapter together, two separate themes emerge. Firstly, there is the issue of intra-EU "freedom of movement", mandated by EU treaties and then either a condition of the Single Market participation, whether through the EFTA/EEA route ("Norway Option"), via the "shadow EEA" approach or the Australian process.

We retain the view that the interim stratagem facilitates our expeditious withdrawal from the EU. Short-term compromise on freedom of movement

provisions is an acceptable price to pay, especially if the alternative is continued membership of the EU, which would also require longer term implementation of freedom of movement provisions.
This notwithstanding, we have also argued that leaving the EU, per se, will not solve our immigration problems. Control requires effective policy, and the resources allocated to its execution. However, when it comes to political parties such as Ukip, we see it producing aspirations rather than policies. The core failure is the lack of any connection between what they want to happen, and the means of making those things happen in such a way that one can be assured that the outcomes are deliverable. This confusion between aspiration and policy means that there is often a lack of coherence in the debate from this quarter.
Party supporters, on the other hand (and not entirely unreasonably), point to the similar inadequacies of the established parties. But this simply highlights the further failure to understand the nature of politics. It is for the challengers, with no track record, to demonstrate their capabilities. Conventionally, this is done through the mechanism of policy statements – something which Ukip has so far failed to do. Despite making immigration its core issue, eliding it with its antiEU sentiment, Ukip has failed yet to deliver a credible (or any) policy on how it would control immigration once the UK had withdrawn from the EU.
It has failed in this context to realise that "controlling our borders" is not a policy, per se, but an aspiration – and a wholly unrealistic one at that. As long as the UK admits high numbers of visitors each year – the majority without visas – it has effectively ceded perimeter control. The system must then rely on other stratagems. The party might be better off calling for control over immigration policy, an altogether more realistic and focused aspiration. But the act or process of "controlling" or even "managing" borders is exactly that - an act or process - a means to an end. In policy terms, it is meaningless without declared objectives and then the detail of how the controlling and managing would be done.
Nor indeed does it help having Ukip telling us that: "We will extend to EU citizens the existing points-based system for time-limited work permits". That does not begin to constitute a policy. Nor even is this, in itself, a component of a policy. To have the makings of a policy, the statement would have to be directed to, and linked with, a specific objective or outcome. It would then have to be couched in such terms as to make it clear that it could contribute to the declared objective – whatever that might be. Any system or process, as such, is blind – and has as much a capability to obstruct as support any particular policy line.
Any effective policy, though, must be properly coordinated with other policy areas, as in "joined up policy". The "perfect" policy is one thing, but it can deliver less than optimal overall results when consequential effects in other policy domains are taken into account. For instance, a defence policy might

look well rounded in isolation but less than adequate when foreign policy delivers enemies the nation didn't want, and the military didn't expect and can't fight.
To ignore the interplay between policy domains is rank amateurism, something which is manifest in Ukip's refusal to consider remaining in the EEA because of the requirement to maintain free movement of labour. This is a party which has failed to declare what it is trying to achieve in policy terms, declaring only the aspiration of "managing" borders. Thus, this political party is prepared to abandon a proven and workable trade relationship because it interrupts an indeterminate process aimed at producing an undefined effect, with no specified outcome.
In this event, we are open to the suggestion that Ukip may be well motivated and be seeking a desirable outcome. But since the party has neither defined its preferred outcome nor any credible means by which it might achieve it, we can be excused from accepting that it has any policies.

On the one hand, the bulk of our immigration is not mandated by the EU. Apart from that which is controlled by domestic legislation, applying to third country nationals, it is determined by the ECHR and, to an extent, the UN convention on refugees and other international agreements – plus an element of customary law. Further, if we are simply blocking immigration, while admitting tourists and business travellers at the current rate of well over 34 million per annum, the end result could be an increase in illegal immigration. Essentially, if potential migrants are denied legal routes of entry, many will seek alternatives, as long as migration pressures dominate.
Thus, irrespective of EU membership, it is necessary to deal with the "push" and "pull" factors. To that extent, we wholeheartedly agree with Dr Khalid Koser, cited at the beginning of this chapter, accepting that migration itself is not the problem – it is the symptom of multifarious (and very different) problems. Thus, to deal with migration, the specific problems have to be identified and picked apart. No single solution will work, so it is a question of chipping away at the edges, with different policies and enforcement strategies, in the hope (and reasonable expectation) that overall migration will decline.
This was mirrored by Elizabeth Collett, director of the Brussels-based Migration Policy Institute Europe. "Migration is a multidimensional policy area", she said. "It touches on everything from foreign policy, through to maritime policy, social affairs and employment," adding: "It is by its very nature, a crosscutting area, and to deal with migration effectively you have to take a comprehensive approach".454
454 http://www.dw.de/eu-to-help-italy-rescue-migrants-at-sea/a-17886939, accessed 1 January 2015.

On that basis, not only is the Ukip stance flawed, it is unduly pessimistic. Strategies for dealing with inflows could achieve better results, even with the freedom of movement provisions in place, than could Ukip's insistence on leaving the EU, in the absence of any coherent policies on how to manage the continuing inflow of migrants. Against a general background of administrative incompetence and inadequate enforcement – and the absence of threedimensional policy-making - leaving the EU, per se, might have little effect on the volume of immigration.
 
Why is John Oliver someone that people refer to as a meaningful entity? I was always under the impression that he was a thoroughly mediocre comedian. I've seen him on Mock The Week once or twice, and found him to be quite remarkably insipid, but honestly didn't think that he'd ever be in any danger of acquiring relevance - what changed?

You can be a boring insipid borderline retarded twat but if someone puts a camera in front of you there's a certain segment of America that will automatically find you credible, smart and charming
 
You can be a boring insipid borderline retarded twat but if someone puts a camera in front of you there's a certain segment of America that will automatically find you credible, smart and charming
Tell that to Phillip Haskins Delici when he tried speaking for Occupy. Or that recent thing in San Fran.

As for Oliver... dunno, because I never heard of him. All I know is that the UK actually opens its trade options with this and things'll get brighter after a shitty couple of years.
 
Everyone can get interviewed no one is impressed by that. It's having the tv show while speaking in a British accent that makes him credible to a certain segment of the population by default. He also uses profanities since its HBO so it's really naughty British men are supposed to be proper you know all Hugh Grant like.

This is also really telling that the one exception to this is Piers Morgan and only highlights just how shit he is
 
I told you so.

Preserve your sovereignty, your cultures.

SHUN THE HUN.

I do not know about you, but if this is true, the hun will be full with riots. On one hand, this may give us freedom from the EU, as there is no way the people will let this fly. On the other hand, I doubt the EUssr will refrain from using force if necessary, if this plan is true.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shokew
Markets have staged an excellent recovery on the back of the prospect of more quantitative easing.

I've seen movements like this for the past few years. Market gets hit by bad news, equities drop. Then news goes around that the government is planning an central bank intervention and equities rise massively, 'pricing in' actions that haven't even happened yet. So the prospect of potential recessions has triggered hopes of easing. This is funny because if those recessions never occur easing doesn't happen. So all that positive moment was based on fucking nothing.

The financial markets are a joke at this point.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin and CWCissey
Market drops like this are a joke. Back in 2008, anyone who's not a retarded baby who panicked and dumped everything recovered all of their equities (and more) after the market recovered over a couple of years even if the dumb stimulus make the recovery harder than it should have been

Shit like that is always short term and merely a blimp on yearly/decade averages
 
Back