I/O

In or out

I’m worried about the future of the UK as there are so many uncertainties. My suggestions for the Brits are these:
- don’t vote,
- send your leaders on a long and hazardous holidays themselves,
- keep to the facts, rule out emotions,
- be happy, life is good.

I wish you all the best!

Peter

Never has so much depended on such an utter pile of s@@t. If would almost be comical if it wasn’t for the potential consequences.
The question of the UK in Europe – it’s nonsense. It is wilfully ignoring centuries of history and so many other things besides.

Moi? Je suis Européen.

It is wilfully ignoring centuries of history…

The historical argument is often misused in the arguments: Britannia doesn’t rule the waves for over 70 years anymore, the Splendid Isolation is even older. These new times need a new kind of self-confidence: the UK is a respected partner of Europe as France, Germany or The Netherlands are.

IMHO: It’s nearly a crime to divide a nation so much. And a proof of poor leadership.

It’s nearly a crime to divide a nation so much.

Nearly? Is transportation still on the books?

Nearly? Is transportation still on the books?

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean, Steve. Can you explain, please?

In past days people convicted of many different crimes were “transported” to penal colonies – that’s how much of Australia was populated with Europeans.

Not that I’d inflict the current government on the Aussies¹ as I’m sure it contravenes the Geneva convention and the Aussies would, rightly, complain.

¹ Some small bare rock in the south atlantic would do. Unless it meant we charged with dumping toxic material.

Some small bare rock in the south atlantic would do.

Ah, you mean the Malvinas:-)

For me, it is all about the governance structure. How do you want to be governed? By politicians in Westminster who we elect every five years, or by the EU Commission, who are unelected?

The nearest parallel I can imagine is the United States where no one gets elect Obama. That is where we are now, and Cameron has offered us half a chance to leave and return to democracy. We will see.

I am not interested in the other reasons or scenarios. They are minor items compared to being able to (or not) vote for your leaders.

The historical argument is often misused in the arguments: Britannia doesn’t rule the waves for over 70 years anymore,

I wasn’t so much talking about Britannia – I was thinking more of Romans, Vikings, Norse… the United Kingdom has been a part of European history for about as long as Europe has had history. To claim some sort of British exceptionalism is ridiculous. The UK is a part of Europe, and the EU is the current situation in European history. The part where the many countries actually attempt to talk to each other rationally.

For me, it is all about the governance structure.

How much of the governance structure is wrongly assigned to Europe?

Let me give you an example. When I first came to France, I was covered by the UK on my E111 (or whatever it was called then). This lapsed after two years. For the next three years, France was not in the slightest part interested in me. I did not qualify for any sort of medical coverage, help for finding a job, or anything at all. As far as France cared, I did not exist.
After I had been in the country for five years, as evidenced by tax declarations made every year, I was then eligible to be treated the same as a French person. This means that I qualified for the CMU (like basic NHS) and a jobseekers allowance that was half of what the government considers the poverty limit. In return for that, I had to send off loads of job applications (that very few companies bothered to reply to), go on pointless courses – exactly the same sort of stuff that the JobCentre inflicts upon its victims. I then found a job, and the rest is history.

Read that carefully.
That is entirely and completely within the EU rules on freedom of movement, immigration, etc. One can be considered to be treated the same as a citizen after five years (with something to prove that). Before then, the country does not have to do a damned thing.

So if UKIP / Leave is correct in that all these hoards of migrants (and I don’t mean Syrians, I mean existing EU countries) walk into the UK and get council houses and benefits, them please kindly look at your own government. The EU says that EU citizens can legitimately enter the UK. It doesn’t say that the UK has to pander to their every need from the moment they come in.

By politicians in Westminster who we elect every five years,

Many of the EU directives are intended to try to homogenise things across the EU. This doesn’t mean that it is always going to be successful, the EU eventually shut up about the UK’s preference for a weird measurement system. :-) The UK not only has their opt-out, but also… I forget the name, something boring like “title 5” that allows the government to decline EU directives not considered to be in the national interest. It is perhaps worth noting that Theresa May had accused the EU of gaming the system of what exactly was and wasn’t in the national interest, until an independent Lords review rubbished the claims.

The nearest parallel I can imagine is the United States where no one gets elect Obama.

? Nobody gets to elect Cameron (well, okay, he is elected in his own constituency; but for the rest of us he is the person the party nominates as leader, we don’t have a choice in that). One votes Labour or Conservative (or one of the others). Just like in the US where the vote is for an ass or an elephant…

and Cameron has offered us half a chance to leave and return to democracy.

You think things will be rosy in a government led by Johnson and Gove? Why don’t we start with exactly how many truths they’ve been telling in their campaign? The majority of their speeches are emotionally based, it is like religion, because it starts to fall apart when examined logically.

If Brexit succeeds, you might find that those other reasons and scenarios that don’t interest you come to bite.

Oh, and as for democracy – I cannot vote in the referendum. I have not been out of the UK for more than 15 years, however the last time I voted was for the LibDems when Paddy Ashdown was leading the party. He stepped down in 1999. In that period, the UK has had Major (Tory), Blair (the most Tory Labour leader I’ve ever seen), Brown (say, did anybody elect him?), then Cameron/Clegg (Tory/LibDem-sortof), and now Cameron (Tory). I’m sure the party faithful will point out hundreds of differences between the parties, but really, I didn’t see much of a big difference when Blair beat Major. I had a friend at school, a Young Tory, who said that the world would end if Labour came back to power. Well, Blair made some stupid decisions (Iraq, anybody?) but the world didn’t end. As far as I was concerned, it was just a different face on TV lying to the populace.
Anyway – although I am within the elegible time frame for voting, my voter registration is not. So, sorry Rick, get stuffed. Is that your idea of democracy? To be honest, I think the referendum should be open to every single British adult regardless of location. Anything else is not democracy, just a pretence. But then what can you expect from a government with Theresa May as the Home Secretary?

You might want to consider carefully the UK’s position in the world as of next year, and cast your vote depending on what you want the UK to be and what you want it to stand for. That.

@ Richard
This part of democracy is an illusion. You vote, as all the others do. The result is something you haven’t really asked for and that’s what you have to accept for the next five years. It’s a good illusion though.

The EU Commission is not unelected. Is ‘Tiered election’ the right term, election in steps? It means that you have to be a bit careful when you vote. But that’s normal.

The UK (and The Netherlands) are as democratic as they were. And it is possible to change the governance structure, but not by leaving.

For me, it is all about the governance structure.

I’d have a good deal more sympathy for this argument if ‘electing one’s leader’ was actually possible under our electoral system. For example, I live in south bucks, and the local conservatives could probably nominate a capuchin monkey to parliament in my local seat and it would likely be elected. Most ‘safe seats’ in the house of commons conform to this reality. Again, our present government was actually voted for by less than one third of the electorate. I can’t say therefore that Westminster democracy represents an absolute value for the sake of which we should give up very real benefits.

And it is possible to change the governance structure, but not by leaving.

Exactly. Given that the UK is a part of the EU without being as emotionally invested as, say, Germany – it is actually in a pretty good position to suggest (and maybe even lead) these changes. The EU isn’t perfect, however it has the potential to improve if we all provide politicians who actually want to see this happen, as opposed MEPs happy to pocket nearly £80K per year (plus expenses of around £200 a day, plus other (!) expenses) just for insulting and belittling the whole idea and campaigning about how much the EU sucks.
That’s surely the real scandal here. Let’s think about this. I don’t know how often the EU does stuff, but I work about 220 days in a year. Well, 220*200 = 44000 plus 79000 equals potentially £123,000 per year for mocking the EU. Must be a real cushy job, being a Eurosceptic MEP. Now, what’s YOUR salary?

I think the most depressing thing is that this is essentially a power struggle between factions of the Conservative party, and they don’t seem to care what damage they do along the way, so long as they get to stick it to Cameron and reject the EU to claim all the power for themselves. That’s what it is about. Power.

How do you want to be governed? By politicians in Westminster who we elect every five years, or by the EU Commission, who are unelected?

I didn’t elect Cameron’s lot, but I have to be governed by them.

And I don’t see how the people in the EU who make the laws are any less elected than our own politicians.

As for which I’d rather be governed by… frankly I trust the EU more than I trust our own lot. For example, if it had been left up to the UK government, we’d still be poisoning each other with lead in petrol. It’s only because the EU decided to do something about it that we had to change to unleaded – and I’m grateful to them for it. More recently the argument has been about the quality of bathing water. The EU wants higher standards. Our own government would rather that people get ill. (This is not party political – all the parties seem to have the same woeful record in this area.)

In short, I want the higher standards that the EU is imposing on us.

I heard recently that something like a third of the doctors and nurses in the NHS are not British. Remind me again whether immigration is good or bad for the NHS?

There was another lie being bandied about by the Leave campaign a while ago, something about “unelected judges”. All judges, everywhere, are appointed, never elected.

There have been recent suggestions that “the Euro is broken”. If that were true, the value of the Euro would have crashed against the dollar and the pound. It didn’t. Sure, it has moved a bit, as currencies do all the time, but it hasn’t crashed. The Euro is not broken.

As you may guess, I’m a supporter of Europe and the EU. It has given us so much personal freedom; it has consistently tried to raise standards; it has promoted cooperation. Imperfect it surely is, but I’d far rather be in it than outside it. Far rather. Count me In!

In.

• Brexit is a stupid name
• Isolationism is a bad thing. How are we going to get to the utopian sci-fi future of a unified planetary or interplanetary government if we can’t learn to live with each other? As Rick says the UK has always been a part of Europe. We’ve finally reached the point where there’s a unified government in Europe that’s based on peace instead of one that’s based on war or colonialism. Do we really want to give that up?
• The leaflets I’ve been getting through the post from the Leave camp are crap. They seem to be designed purely to preach to the choir, rather than to put forward cohesive arguments that can be used to attract new supporters. (But on the other hand I haven’t had anything from the Remain camp, so god knows what they’ve been up to)

(But on the other hand I haven’t had anything from the Remain camp, so god knows what they’ve been up to)

The remain camp seem spectacularly unable to make any cohesive discussion that anybody is likely to remember.
There was a bloke on the TV who dived straight into hardcore finance. I changed the channel.
Watching scenes of the somewhat embarrassing farce on The Thames today, I noticed a slogan that read something like “all been sold” (beat) “for EU gold”. That appeals to those who actually still take the likes of Farage seriously. But, then, aren’t these people the ones the Remain camp ought to be targeting? They need some crass slogans of their own, not waffle that would bore economists…

A basic problem is that:

A) The UK press essentially acts as propaganda sheets for their (overseas) owners. Owners who want to evade any control, and block anyone making them responsible for their behaviour, or dealing with their tax dodging, etc, that the EU might bring in to the UK despite their propagandising for Westminster goverments that are leave them alone.

B) The BBC news/political people simply withdraw into “reporting” in the literal sense. i.e. They simply deal with everything on the basis that “Bill said this, Jack said that, so Bill and Jack are arguing. Which one might be their party leader next year?” They repeatedly fail to really check out the claims made and, instead, focus on simply saying who said what. Shallow knockabout rather than critical analysis.

The second means that the BBC keep going back to “immigration” like a dog returning to its sick. They see it as what stirs up the clashes between politicians trying to use the arguments for their persional advantage. So a vote about the EU becomes a surrogate for if Boris will replace Dave and how he will get on with Nigel. Shameful.

Given how much of what has been said is rubbish, often highly deceitful, it is hardly surprising that people are mislead or confused.

We had a leaflet though the door a few days ago. At the top in headline text in a box is

“Official Information About the Referendum On 23rd June 2016”

I showed this to various people and asked, “Who do you think this is from?” They all said “The Government” or “The Council”. But it is actually a ‘Vote Leave’ propaganda sheet. Using graphic design to make it look “Official”.

How many people would you need to fool by such tactics to win a close vote?
Particularly give a lot of “facts” which are gross distortions.

A recent TV broadcast here by “leave” reminded me a lot of documentaries about World War 2. Maps with big red arrows Arcing from east European countries, jumping over and crashing down on Britain. The “dog whistle” effect, reminding people of war, invasions, etc. The invading hords.

I’ve found the whole thing quite disgusting and alarming.

FWIW I live in Scotland and voted to stay part of the UK. But if we the vote is to leave the EU I can see another Scots referendum soon that will easily bring in a decision for Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU.

BBC Radio 4 is running a very useful short (and easily digestible) series this week. It’s on just after midday and is produced by the More or Less team and presented by Tim Harford.

Each programme is about 11-12 minutes long and they scrutinise the source and (as far as possible) the accuracy of all the numbers thrown at us. The first three have been on the cost of being in the EU, immigration and the laws ‘forced’ upon us.

If you’ve missed them, iPlayer is your friend.

and they scrutinise the source and (as far as possible) the accuracy of all the numbers thrown at us.

And that’s the way it should be done! Based on facts. The whole thing is too much a matter of emotion, hearsay and predjudice. Much is to blame the media, who play a very dubious role in the matter.

I was listening to Classic fm the other day. During the commercials there was a message from the leaves: every statement started with ‘vote leave’, there were at least a dozen. Very persuasive and demanding, a strong message though. A pity I can’t check the facts they mentioned.

FWIW I live in Scotland and voted to stay part of the UK. But if we the vote is to leave the EU I can see another Scots referendum soon that will easily bring in a decision for Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU.

We lived in Scotland from 1986-1991. If the vote is to leave, we’ll move back in the hope that your scenario comes to pass.

I’m marketing a computer designed to help with these sort of difficult decisions to relieve the uncertainty and stress. It’s only 5 GBP and to demonstrate my support for all things UK I’ve included a picture of the queen on one side.

I’m Scottish by birth…

The biggest problem with this is that we are only being given two opposite options, stay or leave, when the reality is that the best option would be a middle path – stay in but improve and reform the EU institutions. There would be a lot of support from the citizens of the other EU countries for this approach, although it might not be as well supported by their leaders.

We are also being told by Leave that everything will be fine and dandy if we take a leap into the unknown. If it doesn’t turn out to be as good as they say we will lose out and some of the Remain sides predictions may come true to some extent – but who will bear the costs of this? It certainly won’t be the Leave campaigners, it will be us – and we won’t be let back in on favourable terms, if at all.

I’d recommend people to routinely listen to the R4 “More or less” programmes. In the past they have regularly checked the claims made by politicians and shown how they are nonsense. Yet even when exposed as false, some politicians just go on spouting them. I think all the previous programmes are on iplayer. Well worth a trawl of you want to find examples. They’re more than once chased up all the drivel about EU ‘laws’, numbers of civil servants, etc, etc.

More generally, in recent decades there has been a real difference between what appears in R4 documentaries and programs like “More or less” on the one hand and BBC ‘News and politics’ on the other. This is what makes the absurdly shallow nature of their news and political ‘reporting’ so stark. More than once false ‘facts’ trotted out by politicians have been shot down by the documentaries, but you get no sign of that on the news and politics progs when the same politicians spout the same falsities again and again.

I’m Scottish by birth…

Our daughter is – born in Stornoway. But she’s married to a German, and at the moment they live in Germany (after three years in Italy).

Although I know my feelings, I do think the debate has been poor. Leave seem quiet, and the PM has daily threats/scares for Remain. Both are dubious, and no-one truly knows how either result will play out.

We know that the status quo isn’t on offer. The EU will grow, the Euro will become a more critical component (all EU members will end up with it), there will be a central budget and army etc. That has been the plan since day one. I cannot understand why we are on this path, so simply wish to exercise the option to get off. That’s all it is about.

I agree that we don’t vote for the PM directly, but we do vote for the parties and the winners get control. A party wishing to introduce another system can always stand for election. That is the great thing about regaining control. Yes, Cameron is awful (like at least the three PMs before him!), But he can be removed. And the next elected government can change things.

An unelected EU superstate might make some sense if they eventually close all the national parliaments. After all, what would be their point?