I/O

An unelected EU superstate

If I may say, I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the EU. But first, let me take the question of sovereignty. We are an island, with a powerful economy and (despite recent and regrettable reductions) powerful armed forces under effective political control. The bottom line: we can repudiate any treaty or any law we wish – the only force capable of preventing us doing so is an imminent threat of coercion by a superior military power. The EU is not that entity, and is never likely to be. After all, if the European superstate was really so in fact, how come we are holding a referendum on whether to continue to belong to it? The EU in fact is a voluntary pooling of sovereignty, for the common good, by a number of European countries. It has arguably preserved the peace of our chronically war-torn continent for the last 70 years. During a similar (80-year) period leading up to 1945, the French and Germans fought each other 3 times, involving Europe (including us) and most of the world on the last two occasions. Is that really what we want to return to? The EU is a human institution and therefore imperfect, but it is worth persevering with. If that means voluntarily giving up some of our own freedom to do as we wish (but not irreversibly – see above), then I say Yes. And that doesn’t have to include the Euro either.

@ Richard
It’s up to you to do dangerous things for yourself. But…

Suppose you have a nephew, twelve years old, a kind lad. Would you take him on a bungee jump, you and him together on the same rope? Or on a sky dive, the two of you on the same parachute? Untrained and unexperienced as you are? Would you really do that?

A referendum like this, where the one half (+1) puts the other half (-1) in dangerous trouble, is probably not illegal, but it’s a crime anyway.

A referendum like this, where the one half (+1) puts the other half (-1) in dangerous trouble, is probably not illegal, but it’s a crime anyway.

But how do you know which decision leads to dangerous trouble?

I find it amazing that anyone could seriously attach the absence of war for the last decades in Europe (well, we have to ignore the war in Yugoslavia for the moment of course) to the existence of the EU. There are numerous countries in Europe that are not part of the EU, which also live in peace for decades. And there were numerous treaties and unions in history which didn’t prevent war between their members at all.

How big is this EEC going to be – is it going to enclude all the old Roman Empire?
Russia?
What will happen when Mrs Mertel – retires.
She seems to be the person that the Russian leader calls if there is a problem.

But how do you know which decision leads to dangerous trouble?

No one knows. But you know your present economical situation and that of a poor friend. A Brexit won’t improve both situations (maybe in the very long run) and you might be able to carry it, but for your friend it might be worse. As you can’t know how bad it will be, don’t decide for his disadvantage.

I find it amazing that anyone could seriously attach the absence of war…

I didn’t mention the war. Since WWII (nearly) all European nations look for cooperation instead of conflicts. We live in happy times…

In The Netherlands we have an internet help for voting. You get a series of questions and at the end a suggestion is done based on your answers. Do you have a similar help for the referendum in the UK? Has anyone a link, I like to try it myself.

A Brexit won’t improve both situations (maybe in the very long run) and you might be able to carry it, but for your friend it might be worse. As you can’t know how bad it will be, don’t decide for his disadvantage.

Again: how do you know if a Brexit will or will not improve the economic situation?

The “war” statement of mine was more of a generic kind, maybe an answer/question to George.

And by the way, I am also confused why many people conflate “European” with “EU”. You can act, feel and be a good European citizen without being part of the EU. And why would staying in the EU mean that you will join the Euro some time in the future? The EU and the Euro are two very different and independant things.

Again: how do you know if a Brexit will or will not improve the economic situation?

You’r right, I don’t know. But I hope the UK is ruled by pessimistic assumptions and not by gamble.

@Peter, why do you think Brexit is dangerous? There is no danger. Contrast to remain, where the EU army could well include conscription. I have a young son. Fantasy? It is out of the UK’s hands as long as we are in the EU. An undemocratic ruling elite is dangerous – see the USSR. Do you think the former members should still be in that?!

@George
The EU has not kept the peace. NATO has. The EU are stirring it up in Ukraine! Even if the EU was peaceful, great, but that does not mean we should be in a joined up political club.

How long can the UK remain out of the Euro? Just wait until the pressure starts on us being ‘currency outsiders’ and how we have to be in it to prosper. Nobody has ever asked the UK electorate if it wants to surrender power to the EU, and a boatload has been transferred over the last few decades. That is not right.

Note how EU debate on the Dutch referendum has been hushed until after next week? Not exactly open or democratic.

Anyway, back to our favourite OS (we can agree on that!).

@Peter, why do you think Brexit is dangerous? There is no danger. Contrast to remain, where the EU army could well include conscription. I have a young son. Fantasy? It is out of the UK’s hands as long as we are in the EU.

I will stretch a point and actually address that:

BULL.

End of contributions.

Recent tragic events in Yorkshire (I’m referring of course to the appalling murder of the MP Jo Cox) have persuaded both In and Out camps to call a halt (hopefully prolonged, but I fear not) to what was becoming an increasingly bitter and abusive campaign, and I for one intend to follow their lead.

There is no danger.

Are you aware that a mere 0.6 percent drop in the UK’s manufacturing and exportation would cost as much to the economy as the yearly payment to the EU (which brings around £90bn to the British economy). I really don’t understand why people are so hell-bent on chasing some glorious “go it alone for king and country” fantasy. That world doesn’t exist any more.
Not to mention the stupidity of saying “we’re one of Europe’s best trading partners” in the same sentence as “we don’t want to be in Europe”. Sure, Europe – post Brexit – will probably continue to trade with the UK, and probably on fairly similar terms. But, you know what those terms are? EU directed terms. Assuming the UK is lucky enough not to get clobbered with import/export taxation and customs and such like countries outside the bloc. And, wait, all those things you trade? They’ll have to meet the relevant EU directives. Yup, all those ones that Brexit was happy to walk away from. Goods and services will need to meet EU regulations and there will be nothing the UK could say in the matter. The EU could pass directives forbidding the use or mention of imperial measurements and GBP. They won’t because that is petty, but they could and a UK trading with Europe outside the EU would have no choice but to follow, or cease trading. Is that your idea of what is best for the country? Don’t you think Britain is better served by trade agreements and regulations that it actually has some say in?

Contrast to remain, where the EU army could well include conscription.

Yup. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll file this factoid right next to the one where Turkey joins the EU sometime soon. You really should stop believing every mail drop that falls through the letterbox, or can you point to a credible source that proposes this as a reality?

Here, let me help you. I googled “eu army conscription”. On the second page of results, after a pile of tin foil hat screaming freaks and nutjobs, I eventually came across this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-you-re-voting-for-brexit-because-you-think-british-troops-will-be-called-up-to-an-eu-army-you-ve-a7024221.html
Is The Independent a credible enough source to suggest you are being hoodwinked on a grand scale? Yes, Juncker has suggested that the EU needs an army. However there is pretty much no political will behind this idea, given what it would imply. Even the Germans – staunch supporters of the EU – don’t want to get involved in a debate involving “Europe” and “army” in the same sentence. Some day the EU is going to have to consider defence, however it isn’t going to involve the formation of a giant EU army to trample over everything that has been built thus far.

I have a young son.

I don’t, thank god. So when the vote is for Brexit, I have nobody I need to explain such an utter failure to.

Fantasy? It is out of the UK’s hands as long as we are in the EU. An undemocratic ruling elite is dangerous

You are aware of the concept of “referendum” right? You’re about to have one regarding the in or out of the EU itself. Isn’t that pretty democratic? More or less every country that is worth a damn and isn’t run by crooks or weirdos has said that Brexit is a really bad idea. If there was no democracy, there would be no referendum.

see the USSR.

Putin is anti-EU and favours Brexit. Surprise surprise. Post Brexit, Russia might become one of the UK’s best trading partners. Well, there’s got to be a loophole around all those pesky embargoes and export restrictions, right?

Nobody has ever asked the UK electorate if it wants to surrender power to the EU

Some is necessary when you are interacting with other countries. I prefer not to call it surrendering, but compromise. Or, of course, Britain could hold all the power it wants and everybody else would tell it to get lost. Treaties and agreements are brokered. Deals are made. The trick that diplomats do is try to make everybody feel they got the best deal available.
This, in no way, means that the UK is not its own sovereign state. Again, the fact that you are having a referendum shows that Britain is quite capable of making its own decisions and destiny. Good or bad.
Boatload? I’m sure the UKIP crowd would love to scare you with statistics of how many laws passed in the UK is of EU origin. Three quarters? More? The EU makes the laws and the UK bends over and takes it up…whoops, family friendly forum. :-) Well, how would you like a more credible source than Boris and Nige? How about, oh, I dunno, a House of Commons Library Report from around 2012 (I think) that puts the figure at about 7%. Here, it’s a long slog but if you like numbers then you might enjoy this: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf

Note how EU debate on the Dutch referendum has been hushed until after next week? Not exactly open or democratic.

Maybe they are worried that any such debate on referendums could be claimed by one side of the UK referendum as favouritism or attempting to influence the result. It isn’t open that Boris is driving around in a bus with that big £350m emblazoned across the side despite that figure being absolutely provably incorrect.

I’m probably not going to post much more here, as I’m disillusioned and depressed and sick of the whole bloody thing. I just hope, for the sake of your son, that if you still plan to vote Brexit instead of doubting these things you’ve been told and looking them up for yourself, you at least take some time to come up with a really good reason to explain to him why.

You’r right, I don’t know. But I hope the UK is ruled by pessimistic assumptions and not by gamble.

What would be a pessimistic assumption? That the EU will flourish, or that the EU will decline? Who knows? Is it a gamble to stay, or is it a gamble to leave?

The truth is, nobody knows. It all boils down to a few basic convictions. Do you think that the UK government will make better decisions than the European Commission? Will the UK Parliament know better what is good for the UK, or the European Parliament? Is it possible to change the EU to better follow the principle of subsidiarity, or is an even more centralized way of handling things the way to go?

Really, it amazes me what both sides seem to know for sure. Take international trade for example. The single European market is surely an advantage for many. But not for all. As an EU member, you cannot do your own, light-weight free trade treaties with other countries – you have to wait for the EU, and that takes time and might give you a worse deal. Take Switzerland as an example, or Norway. There is economic life in Europe beyond the EU, that’s for sure. Is it better outside the EU? This has to be a very difficult question. Beware of all those who give you easy answers.

Fantasy?

Yes, fantasy or, more accurately, a lie. You would only need a superficial understanding of the political structure of the EU to realise this. The power to even make a proposal for a European Army of the type you describe lies only in the European Council (of prime ministers). All decisions of the Council have to be agreed by all members. That is, each country has a veto. So where does that leave this statement?

It is out of the UK’s hands as long as we are in the EU.

Adding a bit of background, the idea of a European Army has been around for decades and certainly well before the UK became a member. It has never risen to the status of being seriously discussed. On the other hand, the EU (not NATO) does undertake many military operations both inside Europe – Kosovo – and outside – S Sudan. These are carried out by national forces on behalf of the EU, which is just the way NATO works. So where does that leave this statement?

The EU has not kept the peace. NATO has.

To answer the question:

How long can the UK remain out of the Euro?

Forever, just as the many other EU states that are not in the Eurozone – Denmark – can. There is no question of doubt about this and to say otherwise is, again, a lie.

Demagogues gain power by employing the Big Lie – one so big that no-one can believe they would say it unless it were true. Fact checking has never been simpler, just a click or two away. Believe nothing until you have checked an independant source ;-)

What would be a pessimistic assumption? That the EU will flourish, or that the EU will decline? Who knows? Is it a gamble to stay, or is it a gamble to leave?

My argument was about the UK, not the EU. The pessimistic assumption is about: what will a leave cost the UK and can the UK handle that?
The poverty line in the UK is commonly defined as being 60% of the median household income.[nb 12] In 2007–2008 13.5 million people, or 22% of the population, lived below this line. This is a higher level of relative poverty than all but four other EU members. (source: Wikipedia, UK) These figures have nothing to do with the EU, they are a result of internal politics. The idea should be: first increase that figure by stimulating the economy and then try a referendum again.

Take Switzerland as an example, or Norway.

It’s nice to have an example of what you want to become, a model. Let’s take Norway:
Larger than the UK, less space occupied. Lots of resources. The GDP pp is $69.71

UK: Little resources (even less when Scotland leaves), GDP pp is $41.15. That means the UK has a very long way to go to meet the level of Norway. (Sources: Wikipedia)

The starting position of the UK is pretty bad. Take that as a pessimistic assumption.

Our cartoonist Collignon shows it shockingly sharp, even without words: http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon~p3761431/3881647/
Translation: To the glorious inventors of the steam engine and the gaslight, after 44 years of unwillingness, than but not.

Our cartoonist Collignon shows it shockingly sharp, even without words:

I get the point, and fairly appropriate…but fail because that’s an American plug, not a British one. It isn’t hard to Google in this day and age. http://www.fastcodesign.com/3032807/why-england-has-the-best-wall-sockets-on-earth

Hmm -the glorious inventors of steam engine and gas lantern, after 44 years unwillingness then but not.

Is that a square plug in a round hole?

Where does the Power come from – Russia? :-|

Hahaha, You are right, Rick, I see it now. Stupid Collignon… S**t, no one can be trusted these days;-)

I think more accidents with electricity occur due to bad wireing, faulty connections and dust than by plugging or unplugging. The fuse is a good idea, though.

Translation: To the glorious inventors of the steam engine and the gaslight, after 44 years of unwillingness, than but not.

Than but not? I know it’s very off topic, but shouldn’t that be: Then better not?

Where does the Power come from – Russia? :-|

No, from the mains.

As an EU member, you cannot do your own, light-weight free trade treaties with other countries – you have to wait for the EU, and that takes time and might give you a worse deal. Take Switzerland as an example, or Norway. There is economic life in Europe beyond the EU, that’s for sure. Is it better outside the EU? This has to be a very difficult question. Beware of all those who give you easy answers.

I would add something to this, just in case anyone is tempted to look for easy answers based on the examples of Norway and Switzerland. Norway, at least in recent years, seems to have become a poster child among certain affluent types in the UK of a sort of semi-independent Euro-state that perhaps the UK could become. However, just as going on holiday to a country is not the same as living there, I imagine that many of those who use Norway as an example tend to see only what they consider to be benefits and ignore the things they don’t like.

Bear in mind that Norway, at least, contributes financially to the EU (via the Norway grants) and has to, for all practical purposes, introduce EU-drafted laws in the name of harmonisation. The country is known for its high cost of living, its low population and its (over-)reliance on oil and fishing, but it’s also in the Schengen free-movement area. If many of the people who look at Norway as a role model woke up one day in a UK that had become like Norway, I doubt that many of them would be happy!

As I’m sure most people here realise, you really have to look at each state in its entirety and appreciate the differences between them. There are no easy answers, indeed. Whatever happens in the upcoming referendum, I doubt that anyone is going to be satisfied with the result.

Than but not? I know it’s very off topic, but shouldn’t that be: Then better not?

Than but not has a bit of regret in it, than better not sounds more as a relief. I prefer the first, but I’m not Collignon.

What is the status of this referendum: obligatory or an advice to the government?

It is not binding, but if the results are clear (say, a reasonably large difference between In and Out), it would probably be political suicide to hold this referendum and all the hoo-ha it has caused and then ignore the result. It may be more valid if there is a tiny majority as while it is technically a majority, it is small enough to mean that making a huge change to the way the country is run mightn’t be the brightest idea.

In order to “brexit” (horrible negative term; quite a shame the Remain couldn’t come up with something snappy), both houses of parliament will need to agree to repeal whatever act it was that entered the UK into the EU. And it is quite possible that this could be blocked or vetoed for ages until lots of hand wringing has taken place.

I can predict exactly two things:

1. If the vote is for the UK to leave the EU, it vote happen the following day.
2. Whatever the result, roughly half the country will be extremely annoyed.

From the Beeb:

Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?
Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question – could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?
The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit – but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding – Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament – the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.
It adds: “If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum).”
In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.
One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.

‘tween you and me, more MPs ought to be whipped more often. Then we wouldn’t be in this mess. To clarify, Wiki describes the whip as A whip is an official in a political party whose primary purpose is to ensure discipline in a legislature. Whips are the party’s “enforcers”, who typically offer inducements and threaten party members to ensure that they participate according to the official party policy.
Given that much of this is a battle (civil war?) with the Conservative party fighting itself (plus UKIP, but does anybody still take Farage seriously?), that things got so horribly nasty is perhaps a massive failing of the whip to keep the party in line. It is almost as if we currently have two parties both calling themselves the Tories.