I/O

Whatever the result, roughly half the country will be extremely annoyed.

The situation that half the country doesn’t say a word to the other half and that for the oncoming 25 years.

‘tween you and me, more MPs ought to be whipped. Then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

It’s a monster, a one of the kind ‘never again’. I wonder if there is anyone who has the guts for an authoritative utterance.
The Swiss have a tradition of ages with referenda. Wonder how they do it. Thanks for the extended answer.

The Swiss have a tradition of ages with referenda. Wonder how they do it.

I don’t think the problem here is the actual referendum. I think the problem is that the truth is sadly lacking, and given some of the things that have been raised here (never mind in the press), by and large I do not believe that the majority fully understand the facts. How many people are even going to go and try to uncover the truth behind what either side says? Why bother, anyway? The Daily Express says this and Boris says that and they have no reason to lie, they’re only looking out for what’s best for the UK, right? Right? Right?
I think, therefore, the Swiss probably start by having a more informed populace.

I don’t think the problem here is the actual referendum.

Of course it is. One question, two polarizing options on such an important matter. The only escape is not voting but as your opponents will vote, you have to as well. And the referendum is hardly prepared. Since the announcement the days should have been scatterd with proper information. Facts. Each day again. They started a dog fight instead.

Since the announcement the days should have been scatterd with proper information. Facts. Each day again. They started a dog fight instead.

…which is why I said that the problem is not the referendum itself but rather that the populace likely do not actually know what they are voting for given that the campaigners preferred to lie, to make up stuff, and to insult each other.

Yes, it is a highly polarising question, but this is part of why the question is being asked at all; though the entire thing has been handled in an astonishingly irresponsible manner if you ask me.

If one doesn’t know how to use a drilling machine, he should not use that drilling machine, although the machine itself might be perfect. It is the combination that makes a good instrument worthless, even dangerous: if you use it, know how.

the entire thing has been handled in an astonishingly irresponsible manner if you ask me.

Hear, hear!

I still don’t understand this: the UK is not part of the Schengen treaty. When I want to enter the UK, I have to go through the customs to show my passport. So there is a border control, I probably could be refused to enter. Why is the influx of migrants such an issue?

Regarding border control, my understanding is that we can only stop those who are known criminals.

I agree that the campaign has been scruffy. I don’t like seeing the UK PM (or his elite chums) threaten the nation. But I also don’t like how immigration has become a key card for leave (there are difficult thing to discuss here, and I can understand any frustrations and harsh solutions, particularly when the liberal elite scream ‘racist’ to prevent debate).

I believe a specific act of parliament was passed for this referendum. It does not state what will happen in a Leave vote. So that is a very good question. Look at the recent EU referenda where the ‘wrong’ result arrived, so the EU asked people to think again. Hmm!

P.S. More MP whipping sounds a bit Blair-ish. MPs should represent their constituents, not the party whip.

Why is the influx of migrants such an issue?

Xenophobia. The funny thing is the ones that are like that are generally only a generation or two from being immigrants.¹ I think the English phrase that covers it is “I’m alright Jack”, either that or they really are stupid.

¹ I went for years being happy about a mongrel status, based on a misapprehension about my mothers family origin and a supposition about the family name. Then I researched my family history. It seems that, despite my previous belief, I’m pure English. Every contributing branch going back as far as I can trace (Tudor times so far). Oh, and as far as I can tell I’m clean of traces of royal blood too :)

my understanding is that we can only stop those who are known criminals.

It took me 3 minutes (I timed it) to establish that EU citizens only have a right to remain for 3 months and that the UK can apply any restrictions it wants on entry for “public policy, security or health”. That we are generally more generous than this is just our current government’s choice.

I believe a specific act of parliament was passed for this referendum. It does not state what will happen in a Leave vote. So that is a very good question.

This one took a minute to identify the act and confirm that it says that any result is not binding on the government – parliament remains sovereign in such matters.

Why is the influx of migrants such an issue?

Xenophobia, stupidity, and years of finding it easier to blame stinking Johnny Foreigner instead of accepting our own failings.

Regarding border control, my understanding is that we can only stop those who are known criminals.

Point is, the UK has border control. The fact that it is clueless and woefully inadequate is not the EUs fault.
And no, there ought to be provision for dealing with people suspected of being involved with criminal acts even if they themselves are not criminals.
Because if not, you’ve just admitted that the UK is powerless to stop those deluded people that go to Syria and come back with a jihad rampage in mind.

I don’t like seeing the UK PM (or his elite chums) threaten the nation.

Yes, and Boris/Farage have fought a clean fight with no lies. Did you catch that party political advert with those two builders imaging what they’d do with their fifty million quid? Did you catch the bit about “when Turkey joins the EU”? Lies and threats (stay in the EU and all the Turks will come to the UK).

(there are difficult thing to discuss here,

No, they are the big talking point because they’re pretty much the only card you Leave supporters have left. Leave has been proven to have lied about numerous things, and trotting out the tired “scaremongering” mantra whenever somebody points out the logic fails does not make those issues cease to exist. About the only aspect of Europe they can definitively point to is the mess we’re all making of the “immigrant crisis”.
But hey, what the hell, two local towns have just welcomed more immigrants than the entirety of England. The world hasn’t fallen apart.

and I can understand any frustrations and harsh solutions, particularly when the liberal elite scream ‘racist’ to prevent debate).

Wow. And I suppose you have absolutely no comment on UKIP’s latest poster? Funny you pick on the “liberal elite” while ignoring the fact that UKIP propaganda is frequently racist in nature, and the recently murdered MP was quite likely murdered by a racist on account of her campaigning for more to be done for immigrants in need of help.
Yet you seem to see only debate being interfered with by the liberal elite.
Interesting perspective you have there.

When I was young I disliked the French. There was no specific reason, it was just “known” that the French were arrogant and untrustworthy. I think my first reaction to mom buying a house in France was “what the hell” (or words to that effect).
Eventually I got to go to France and I knew enough not to exercise the two phrases I picked up after a couple of years of French at school – ow est le plag (“où est la plage” horribly mispronounced) and “bière, salop!” (roughly “beer, bitch!”).
So I went, I saw, I even bought a cheesy t-shirt.

And you know what? All that stuff about the French? Crap. A childhood of utter crap. Oh, sure, there are arrogant French but there are arrogant twits from every country. And as for untrustworthy, I’m not sure I’d believe DSK if he told me the time, but I’d say the same for Farage.

Between British and French there are huge differences. But there are also huge similarities. And certainly nothing that I have experienced to make them worthy of a childhood indoctrination as to how awful they are supposed to be. All those people that hate the French (Germans, Dutch, whatever); I wonder; have they ever actually met any?

It does not state what will happen in a Leave vote.

Thanks Steve for highlighting this. Umm, didn’t I post an answer to this just yesterday? ;-)

Edit: yes, back a page: https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/12/topics/6310?page=2#posts-55556

All those people that hate the French (Germans, Dutch, whatever)

The Dutch?

All those people that hate the French (Germans, Dutch…

Huh, anyone who hates me?
But I get the point, Rick, that’s why I want to get in touch with the locals, specially on holidays. You can learn a lot.

I hoped for a bit more substance on the matter. This is what I found: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

In headlines:
- immigration was an issue long before the EU,
- there is a managed migration system, based on five points, pretty regulated,
- refugees and asylum seekers are under the regulations of the UN.
In my opinion illegal or irregular immigration is not a part of the EU, but of border control.

But I get the point, Rick, that’s why I want to get in touch with the locals, specially on holidays. You can learn a lot.

Indeed. The idea of just disliking somebody because of their country of origin is dumb.

- immigration was an issue long before the EU,

Which is why leaving isn’t going to be a magical cure.

Which is why leaving isn’t going to be a magical cure.

I wouldn’t get too worried: Ladbrokes were giving odds of 24% on Leave this morning; a week ago it was 43%. Of course, that’s what people /think/ will happen, not a poll. But the money has been the better indicator at both the last general election and the Scottish referendum.

Today it rains, for thursday is only a prediction.

Rick, the UKIP poster doesn’t bother me either way. Lies and simplifications both sides are bad. I find Cameron’s tone worst, particularly when you contrast what he has said in the past to what he actually does. Mind you, I guess that is normal for a politician!

I cannot connect the murdered MP to Leave or even ‘racists’ any more than I connect Orlando to Muslims or homosexuals. Both are ill people.

Like I said, the only argument for me is about who governs you. Can we vote them out? Cameron (or Corbyn)? Yes. Lord Hill or Junker? Nope. That is wrong to me, and nothing can justify it.

Like I said, the only argument for me is about who governs you. Can we vote them out? Cameron (or Corbyn)? Yes. Lord Hill or Junker? Nope. That is wrong to me, and nothing can justify it.

Part of the problem here is that there seems to be (deliberate?) confusion over the European Parliament versus the European Commission. The European Parliament is analogous to the House of Commons – they are the ones who make the laws, whereas the European Commission is analogous to the Civil Service – they are the ones who enact the laws.

Junker is the head of the European Commission – complaining that we cannot vote him out is a bit like complaining that we cannot vote out the head of the Department of Works and Pensions (or whatever it’s called this week…)

And part of the problem might be familiarity. You know the British democratic system. You vote every five years, you know the faces and the arguments, you know the places (Downingstreet 10 e.g.) and the interiors of the Houses. Politicians enter your living-room nearly every day. You have an idea about how things work. An you feel pretty confident by all that, even if you don’t agree with specific outcomes.

The EU is much more abstract. You hardly ever see the large room where decisions are made, you don’t know faces (perhaps a few British), you know there are nations with different concepts of economics or corruption e.g. There are lots of lanquages used, what you see are interpretations/translations. And obviously the democratic processes aren’t clear enough to the people.

But all and by I have confidence in the democratic proces. The resultant of different forces is still a move in the right direction. A lot of things could be sharper though, more to the point. With less bureaucracy. Our Frans Timmermans is my hero.

Trying to unravel some of the nonsense: http://www.heyrick.co.uk/blog/index.php?diary=20160617

The EU is much more abstract. You hardly ever see the large room where decisions are made, you don’t know faces (perhaps a few British), you know there are nations with different concepts of economics or corruption e.g. There are lots of lanquages used, what you see are interpretations/translations. And obviously the democratic processes aren’t clear enough to the people.

As with other issues, a big part of the problem here is the failings of the UK ‘media’. Reporting showing and explaining what actually happens at an EU level hardly ever appears, say, on the BBC. Their obsessions when it comes to news and politics tend to be Westminster and the USA. OK, you do get some coverage on the ‘parliament’ channel. But then note how much time at the weekend gets used for C-SPAN.

If the reporting was better, people would be better informed. However journalists simply take for granted that in some magic way ‘politicians’ should explain this despite the journalists persistently interrputing to ask “but Bill disagrees with you, so who will lead your party?” questions.

Lies and simplifications both sides are bad. I find Cameron’s tone worst, particularly when you contrast what he has said in the past to what he actually does. Mind you, I guess that is normal for a politician!

I can understand why DC had to say one thing when he was dealing with getting concessions out of the EU compared to what he is saying now – you don’t want to show your hand too early in negotiations. Don’t forget that Boris was all for allowing Turkey to join the EU a few years back, and now he’s warning us that the whole population of Turkey will turn up at our borders next week if we don’t vote leave…

By the way, racists and terrorists may well be sick or deluded people, but I wouldn’t say that about Muslims or homosexuals.

I guess that is normal for a politician!

It is. And not only for a politician. Points of views change as the world changes. Be glad they don’t stick stubbornly to what they said years ago. And that they are flexible enough to cope with current issues. But lieing is of a complete different order.