The EU Referendum thread - sponsored by Harold's YouTube videos

[Byron]

Figured it's time for a thread;

Cameron has shown off a fancy deal he's apparently negotiated to a lot of fanfare on his side and a lot of suspicion from the other side.

In addition Chris Grayling asked for permission to campaign to leave the EU dice he now had a deal but has been told to wait a couple of weeks so the cabinet can agree a position.

So where do we all stand? I'm in the 'Leave' camp currently.

[Magic]

I genuinely have no idea at the moment. I could be swayed (unlike the Scottish one).

[Baz]

If England stay in the EU, is there a chance we might start using Euro's instead of GBP? I wanna use Euro's.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Cameron's 'deal' is a load of balls. Would businesses fuck off if we left? Would they fuck. We'd probably end up cutting a lot of taxes in order to be competitive, which would be a good thing.

That said, Harold wants to leave. It's a tough call. I'm genuinely undecided.

[Lewis]

The news seems happy enough to lol at this shithouse 'deal', which makes you wonder why he even bothered with it in the first place. We all know he wants to stay in regardless, so why didn't he just make the case for what was and save himself the embarrassment?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm just waiting for one of those dead cats now for the full party piece. Maybe they will have Ken Clarke stand up and claim that Farage killed his cat, and that Chris Grayling hid the evidence.

[Lewis]

694643825227202564

Guido. :cool:

[Jimmy Floyd]

Guido's been on form since Harry Cole (it took me 30 years...) left. Think he's rediscovered his inner lol.

[Jimmy Floyd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaPmUOHW0AAUKE_.jpg:large

[Lee]

The deal is bollocks but it will be enough. Remain to win by between 10 and 15 points.

[Henry]

Objective reporting there.

[niko_cee]

It's a bit daft that such a profound question is being reduced to whether or not very marginal reductions of various benefits are available to a ridiculously insignificant proportion of the population.

I don't really see how this deal helps the stay in lot at all. They should campaign on the merits of being in the EU, not defending such a meaningless and pointless (and fundamentally EU-y in a bad way) thing. How is it going to help for all the major party folk (Corbs and Cameron + associates) to join forces for a cause that neither really believes in? Isn't it all going to seem a bit of an attempted fudge?

Then you see the people of Clacton on Newsnight and realise that matters of national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy aren't going to be where this is won or lost.

That's a cracking front page from The Sun.

[ItalAussie]

If the UK did leave the EU, I'm curious as to whether there would be provisions for people who live in the country to continue doing so. Or would you just summarily round up all the French people and ship them out?

[John Arne]

If the UK did leave the EU, I'm curious as to whether there would be provisions for people who live in the country to continue doing so. Or would you just summarily round up all the French people and ship them out?

After a few years, all EU immigrants can apply for permanent residency - so I'm guessing most will simply apply for that. For those in the UK for less than 3yrs, you would hope that there would be some sort of amnesty to apply. I wonder whether simply having this referendum will see a big increase to immigrants going to the UK "before it's too late". That will annoy Harold.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've had 3 mentions in this thread. Why? Nobody is going to be 'kicked out'.

[Davgooner]

We'd probably end up cutting a lot of taxes in order to be competitive, which would be a good thing.

:lewis:

[phonics]

Farage is on Daily Politics answering about the EU and appears to be on a webcam from 1994.

[Henry]

I don't really give a fuck if the UK leaves or not. While I'd like to draw a distinction between the EU and the Eurozone, a lot of the same people are involved in running them, and have acted disgracefully with regards to the latter. There are probably downsides and upsides, but the shambles of Cameron trying to extract populist concessions from a disinterested bureaucracy is amusing and has more to do with PR than anything of substance.

[QE Harold Flair]

There are downsides and upsides but, really and truly, the whole democratic angle is enough for me on its own. It's just not right that people make decisions who are then not accountable for them.

And the pro lot bang on about workers rights and all this stuff as if we would suddenly revert to child labour and slavery if we left.

[QE Harold Flair]

Just to make sure the sponsor gets in:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjlkqSPGmGk

[Henry]

It's just not right that people make decisions who are then not accountable for them.

Who are those people? There's quite a lot of ignorance about the EU, and this is one of the things that keeps getting trotted out.

[Lee]

It's bollocks. It could be more democratic in the form of direct elections to key positions but all of the institutions derive their authority from the elected national governments.

[Lewis]

I've generally gone along with the idea that the European Union protects politicians from the plebs, but I'm becoming more convinced that it actually protects them from themselves and their own inadequacies as policy-makers. It's just a colossal extension of the quango state, removing responsibility (and accountability) from people who wouldn't actually know what to do with it if they had it. It can't be a coincidence that the only Prime Minister to have actually given them any grief was the one with the clearest sense of purpose.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who are those people? There's quite a lot of ignorance about the EU, and this is one of the things that keeps getting trotted out.

Well why don't you tell me how those who make the laws in Europe can be kicked out?

[Henry]

Well why don't you tell me how those who make the laws in Europe can be kicked out?

Well, those in the EU parliament can be voted out in elections. And those in the EU commission are chosen by the governments, so they can be changed by changing the government. Who else do you mean?

[QE Harold Flair]

Well, those in the EU parliament can be voted out in elections.

Are you sure about that? I've never been asked. I'm pretty certain I can't vote out anyone from any other country.


And those in the EU commission are chosen by the governments, so they can be changed by changing the government. Who else do you mean?

I want control over governments for my country only. Other country's representatives should have no say on what happens in my country.

[QE Harold Flair]

The Daily Politics was a disgrace today as well. They had Farage for about 2 mins and the rest of the programme was 2 pro-EU wankers and an echo chamber.

[Henry]

Are you sure about that? I've never been asked. I'm pretty certain I can't vote out anyone from any other country.

Nor can you vote out anyone from any other part of the country in a national election. Have you got the same problem with those? :rolleyes:


I want control over governments for my country only. Other country's representatives should have no say on what happens in my country.

Well, that's an entirely different argument, isn't it?

[QE Harold Flair]

Nor can you vote out anyone from any other part of the country in a national election. Have you got the same problem with those? :rolleyes:

I don't particularly like our voting system either, but at least it's for my country. Various countries will all have vastly different concerns, economies, interests and so on. Why would you want a more undemocratic system than we already have?



Well, that's an entirely different argument, isn't it?

No, not really. It's at the heart of what I'm saying.

[Henry]

No, not really. It's at the heart of what I'm saying.

Your first argument was that they're "not accountable". It having been explained that they are, you've changed that to "not accountable to Harold/people in the UK".
That qualifier makes it a different argument, your usual obstinacy notwithstanding.

[QE Harold Flair]

Your first argument was that they're "not accountable". It having been explained that they are, you've changed that to "not accountable to Harold/people in the UK".
That qualifier makes it a different argument, your usual obstinacy notwithstanding.

That's right, they're not. You haven't explained how I might cast a vote for someone else other than the people making the laws......

[Henry]

Yes I have. At the European or general elections.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes I have. At the European or general elections.

We, the British people, have already voted for an anti-EU representation. Not helping in stopping the EU making laws we can do nothing about, is it? Why don't we just call it as it is - you don't like nation states. I do.

[Henry]

You still voted for someone other than the people making the laws, they just didn't win the election.

[QE Harold Flair]

You still voted for someone other than the people making the laws, they just didn't win the election.

Yes, but I had my say. As someone who claims to be all for democracy, why do you want a substantially more unrepresentative selection process?

[Henry]

I didn't say that I wanted that.

Now, I'm finished with this attempt to reason with you.

[Byron]

Talk about an own goal.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/david-cameron-prompts-anger-by-telling-mps-to-ignore-the-views-of-eurosceptic-grassroots-members/ar-BBp5OAc?ocid=spartandhp

Whichever way you cut it, the press are going to have a field day with that one.

[Lee]

I don't see the issue. It's a referendum, party members have their own vote. she's right; MP should be voting based in their own beliefs.

[Byron]

I'm not saying the message is terribly wrong, but you hardly want the papers to jump on the idea of 'MP's told to ignore their constituents!'.

[phonics]

I'm not saying the message is terribly wrong, but you hardly want the papers to jump on the idea of 'MP's told to ignore their constituents!'.

Didn't seem to hurt the Syria vote.

[Lewis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35489335

lol

[Byron]

Hahaha. I can imagine it now.

'I worked hard on this, I sat down with all the leaders of Europe and we came to a mutual solution that everything should continue as it is and we shouldn't get any concessions. I urge you to vote to stay as part of the EU.'

*UKIP lolls itself off the face of the earth*

[GS]

The renegotiation is, and should be, irrelevant to anyone weighing up how they are going to vote.

My biggest concern regarding the "risk" of remaining in the EU is that you have, and will continue to have, a two-track EU. That is (i) Eurozone countries and (ii) non-Eurozone countries. The former will continue to push towards 'ever closer union' both politically and fiscally to make the single currency work. Their key concerns will be maintaining the stability of the Eurozone and the accompanying Schengen arrangement which supports it. All new EU-entrants are required to adopt the Euro, demonstrating how pivotal they believe the single currency to be to its future.

In that instance, countries outside the Eurozone will become 'second class citizens'. Decisions won't be taken to support "EU28", rather they will focus on strengthening the Euro and decisions will, likely, originate from Paris and Berlin. The caveats and opt-outs we have at present, or which we are in the process of 'negotiating', are vague, and don't offer the necessary protection for us against legislation etc. which may be harmful to our economy but beneficial to the Eurozone.

I also think there has been a catastrophic failure of leadership from the EU over the last year or two in relation to the Greek debt crisis and the migrant / refugee crisis. In the former, they have fiscally waterboarded one of their own members to accept an economic programme which impoverishes the populace and adopt liabilities which they simply cannot pay. To compound it, the Greeks are now being blamed for not doing enough to stop the boats coming in from Turkey with discussion of 'suspending' their Schengen status, effectively using the country as a buffer to protect central Europe.

On the latter, Merkel's policy on migration was illogical and the consequences could be profound. She rode over any number of existing protocols (predominantly the Dublin regulation) and has created a situation of mass chaos. Despite growing criticism in Germany and throughout Europe, her hubris prevents her from admitting that summarily opening Germany's borders may have been a mistake.

Overall, I don't think we have a place in an EU which is going to be so focused on the Eurozone, Schengen and the accompanying infrastructure to support both. We're the sixth largest economy in the world. We're a member of NATO, we're a permanent member of the security council, we have an independent nuclear deterrent. We are not Luxembourg or Belgium, who harbour well-founded historical fears of the Germans marching over the border. The EU has done a remarkable job of maintaining the peace in Europe, and the smaller countries will always feel they "need" the protection this body brings by making it inconceivable that Europe could go to war again. We don't need any of this. If it was solely a single market, I'd be all for it. But it isn't, it's not going to be and the risks of staying outweigh the risks of leaving.

[GS]

Some interesting polls post the reform package tonight:

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 36% (-2)
Leave: 45% (+3)
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)

The Prime Minister's EU deal...
Goes too far: 4%
Is about right: 17%
Doesn't go far enough: 56%
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)

On the Prime Minister's EU reform package:
A good deal: 22%
A bad deal: 46%
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)

[Toby]

When did Leave amass that sort of lead? That suggests even before now it was leading by four, but I was under the impression Remain had a narrow lead.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, leave was up in the last one before the deal.

[Lewis]

This (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2016-02-04/the-last-word-february-2016/) is a quality debate. Well. It isn't really. But the fucking state of that Labour geezer (they bill him as Conservative for some reason). I wanted to lamp him just watching it, so I expect Daniel Hannan is still screaming into a bin somewhere.

[Toby]

No, leave was up in the last one before the deal.

It seems YouGov's results are very different to other pollsters. They must be wording the question differently.

[GS]

Phone polls suggest a significant "Remain" lead. Given the shambolic performance of polls in the run-up to the election, you can't really place too much stock in them. That said, they will affect the political and media narrative so a "Leave" lead will push the discussion more towards what might happen in those circumstances. If "Leave" is to win, it would need a huge lead now given it will inevitably be whittled away in the months ahead. They need to present "Remain" as being the far riskier option, which is going to be very difficult to do given they can't even get themselves organised properly.

It's quite galling to see senior political figures compromising their principles on an issue of such importance to secure their careers and future advancement. It was ever thus, I suppose.

[Toby]

Jimmy will probably correct me but I think polls for referendum are likely to be more accurate than ones with loads of constituencies and multiple options. Especially if they have the actual question to be asked. The Scottish referendum polls were pretty bang on in the end.

[Lee]

The phone polls will be closer to the truth, you'd think. They were better than online polls through the election campaign. Whether that stands for a referendum I don't know. It would be interesting to look back at the Scottish independence polls.

The current consensus seems to be that leadership ratings are much more accurate than voting intention numbers. If that translates for the referendum then I don't see how the leave campaign isn't fucked unless Boris Johnson leads it, which I don't think will happen. Even then I'm not sure if he's more trusted than Cameron. Farage should be avoided; some polls have him as more disliked than Corbyn, which is some going.

I suspect Cameron is playing a blinder with his current 'deal'. It all looks like a set up ahead of his next round of negotiations so he can come back with something slightly better and claim he has listened to the British people and persuaded 'the Europeans' to go further. We shall see.

[GS]

To be honest, my scepticism is largely because I find it impossible to believe that "Leave" has a nine point lead.

[Lee]

It may be that it's tight and that poll is at one end of the margin of error. I tend to believe that remain are comfortably in the lead and that it will tighten a bit toward the vote.

[GS]

The 'News International' papers seem to be swinging fully behind 'Leave', and it's becoming clearer by the day that Cameron is struggling to hold potential 'outers' in his party in-line.

On related notes, the EU have given Greece a deadline to stop the boats or be 'suspended' from Schengen, whilst the latest youth unemployment stats across the EU are thus:

Greece: 48%
Spain: 47.7%
Italy: 40%
Cyprus: 32.5%
Portugal: 32%
France: 24.7%
UK: 13.7%
Netherlands: 11.6%
Germany: 7.1%

[GS]

Latest Sunday polling for anyone interested:

I expect David Cameron will (X) for Britain in his EU renegotiation:
Get a good deal: 21%
Not get a good deal: 58%
(via ComRes / 10-12 Feb)

Britain's economy is/would be better off for/if we...
Being EU members: 39%
Left the EU: 36%
(via ComRes)

I would be personally better off if Britain...
Remained members of the EU: 29%
Left the EU: 27%
(via ComRes)

We are/would be better able to manage migrants coming through Calais...
As EU members: 29%
If we left the EU: 47%
(via ComRes)

[Toby]

Prize for strangest piece of campaign merchandise so far goes to:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbg6q_hWcAATu6M.png

Surely they should be telling people to simply pull out. :henn0rz:

[GS]

Whilst it was expected, attempts to portray this negotiation as a) significant and b) successful are bordering on genuinely insulting.

[Lewis]

I saw a trade union bod on Channel 4 saying we have to stay in because the European Union guarantees workers' rights, which the Conservatives would want to get rid of. If only the trade unions had some sort of political vehicle through which to influence domestic political issues.

[Byron]

So talks have not progressed. Rumours are that a few Eastern European states are not agreeing anything regarding benefits and the French are blocking anything they would see as giving more freedom to the City of London. Polls are 52% Remain and 48% Leave and unless Cameron gets something soon, the momentum is going to swing against him.

[QE Harold Flair]

The out campaign are often derided as 'living in the past', but I see it as quite different. Staying in a failing, undemocratic wasteland is living in the past. Even the lefty BBC audience on QT seemed more for leaving last night. But I still fear people will votre for the status quo, as is often the case.

[Lee]

So talks have not progressed. Rumours are that a few Eastern European states are not agreeing anything regarding benefits and the French are blocking anything they would see as giving more freedom to the City of London. Polls are 52% Remain and 48% Leave and unless Cameron gets something soon, the momentum is going to swing against him.

Online polls are. Phone polls have the remain lead as much bigger. Cameron isn't daft, it isn't as though he hasn't been talking to other leaders at all and has just left everything until this summit. He'll know the challenges.

He'll also know that it looks good for him to have come through a tough negotiation and 'fought hard for Britain' before declaring success. He wants to stay in, the rest of the EU want us to stay in. There will be a real, even if it isn't achieved at this summit. It will be one that allows him to say he's won decent concessions too.

We all know that in reality the renegotiation is bollocks but we also know that whatever the outcome a number of people will vote to leave anyway. It isn't those people Cameron needs to win over. The campaign won't be fought over whatever deal Cameron brings back in any case.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Here's a superb articulation of the case for leaving in terms I hadn't thought of before: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12163352/Britains-work-in-the-EU-is-done-our-next-chapter-awaits-us-outside.html

[Lee]

Here's a superb articulation of the case for leaving in terms I hadn't thought of before: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12163352/Britains-work-in-the-EU-is-done-our-next-chapter-awaits-us-outside.html

That's a good article but if the author thinks the EU is so great and that a European state will be even better then why not accept being 'dominated' and live with Schengen and the Euro? And can a state by the name of Europe not do all these outward looking things with China and whoever else?

[Lewis]

Equally, Britain (and Ireland) could join the United States and work effectively with China.

[Lee]

Yeah, of course. I'm not a 'we are completely fucked if we leave the EU' merchant.

As you know I'm in favour of further integration for other reasons. I don't actually care much if that's through the EU it's obviously the best existing route for it to happen.

[Lewis]

Historically/culturally/whateverly we would be a much better fit as an American state than a European province. Let's start a movement.

[phonics]

If I can vote in American elections, I'm in. I say we're worth like 500 delegates too so we always get to decide.

Boris would be President within the week.

[Lewis]

The United Kingdom of America. Bring back the Grand Union Flag (updated to include post-1801 changes to our colours), and it's utterly seamless.

[Disco]

I'll take being able to turn right on a red light (well, left over here) but I don't want cheese with literally everything or their weedy power outlets that won't boil a kettle.

[simon]

It's the constant adverts that would bring the biggest issue.

Well, and the guns.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd consider moving to France, and I fucking don't say that lightly.

[Lee]

Floyd's relationship with France is one of the best things about this board. He's the most English person on here. I mean that as a compliment.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I am the most English. Floyd turns his nose up at the EDL and proper working class heroes of that nature.

[Lewis]

The Labour leadership BOTTLING IT worries me a bit. I get that the wankers would probably use this as the reason to depose them all, so tearing all those Tony Blair statues down takes priority, but even a little bit of ambiguity would have done wonders. If the whole party machinery is thrown behind it then shit.

[GS]

Here's a superb articulation of the case for leaving in terms I hadn't thought of before: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12163352/Britains-work-in-the-EU-is-done-our-next-chapter-awaits-us-outside.html

His point about the 'two-track' EU between Eurozone and non-Eurozone is quite apt, and is the main reason why I'm voting to leave. It's just not going to work unless you sign up to everything. You can't vote for the EU you want it to be - you have to vote on the basis of the organisation that is and what it's going to become.

[GS]

It looks like Michael Gove is going to campaign for Brexit.

Fair play to him.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The Labour leadership BOTTLING IT worries me a bit. I get that the wankers would probably use this as the reason to depose them all, so tearing all those Tony Blair statues down takes priority, but even a little bit of ambiguity would have done wonders. If the whole party machinery is thrown behind it then shit.

Obviously Jezza can't afford to risk the London dinner party vote that currently makes up most of his following.

[Lewis]

Most of his party. Michael Gove is the man and everything, but the biggest thing about him backing out is that it might persuade Boris Johnson (still a twat) to do likewise, and maybe some other twats who don't want to blow their future leadership chances.

[Lewis]

Grassroots Out (Nigel Farage Ego Vehicle mk. II) were hosting a shocker of an evening according to Establishment Twitter, and now their mystery 'Special Guest' speaker has been revealed as George Galloway. I think I've probably got more time for Gorgeous George than most, but fucking hell collapse the building around everyone.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Says a lot about David Davis that he's prepared to muck in with those wankers. Gove declaring Leave has rather rubbed them out of the game. Imagine him in a televised debate against whoever Remain choose :drool:

[Lewis]

Half of the audience walked out during his speech, so hopefully that lot have blown it now.

[GS]

You have to laugh at Cameron, really. He's managed to put himself in a really quite lol-worthy position here. He'd have been better off not bothering with this "renegotiation" at all.

[Lewis]

This press conference is a low point for Britain. He keeps talking about how we're better off in a 'reformed European Union'. Maybe, but we haven't got that have we you twat?

[GS]

I'm genuinely quite angry about the way he's going on. I know they generally take the average voter to be thick, but you'd need to be dense to consider this anything more than an embarrassment. A British Prime Minster scrabbling around Europe to 'win' a few non-binding 'reforms' which they've chipped away at constantly, all to reach an end game we already knew was coming.

Well done Dave, you wanker.

[Lewis]

So in the end, David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership served to remind us of the case for leaving: the EU is designed in such a way that almost no sensible proposal can be passed... The resulting deal is a woeful substitute for the fundamental reform that he rightly set out to achieve. They called his bluff, which is bad in itself. But worse, he has now been sent back to London to try to call the bluff of his country.

That covers it nicely, and this conference seems to suggest that they won't even bother to defend the 'deal' in the referendum. They will just SCAREMONGER (arf) and stonewall any lolling at their shit.

[GS]

They'll pivot to wider issues like security and jobs, because they know this 'deal' can be thoroughly torpedoed.

[QE Harold Flair]

Half of the audience walked out during his speech, so hopefully that lot have blown it now.


Half :henn0rz:

Twitter might have exaggerated. It looks like about 3-5 people walked out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33AoP27T__o

And at least one of them was a Jew and a young Theo Paphitis, or however you spell his name.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's the end of Farage's political career, you can't platform with Galloway like it's an acceptable thing.

[Lewis]

France and that Donald Tusk berk have both shat on Dave's claims of treaty change and 'special status'. Do they simply not co-ordinate these things, or are they simply so committed to it that they are incapable and unwilling to attempt even the most elementary bullshit politicking?

[Toby]

Galloway is a genuine embarrassment. I think he alone was responsible for about a five point swing towards an independence vote eighteen months ago. Him being given any sort of grandstand in the debate is about as laughable as June Sarpong appearing on Question Time last night.

I expect I'll vote to stay whenever it comes around but it really is hard to see an argument beyond it suiting me personally. I like the idea that I could totter off to Germany some day to work or study, even if I'm increasingly unlikely to use it. Any downsides just don't affect me enough to care, and I imagine the only way the remain vote will win is if enough people feel the same way.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's the end of Farage's political career, you can't platform with Galloway like it's an acceptable thing.

They've got on fairly well for ages. He has been on Galloway's show a couple of times.

[Jimmy Floyd]

France and that Donald Tusk berk have both shat on Dave's claims of treaty change and 'special status'. Do they simply not co-ordinate these things, or are they simply so committed to it that they are incapable and unwilling to attempt even the most elementary bullshit politicking?

All of them are playing to home audiences, so none of them care. They probably just had a really long game of Cards Against Humanity in the negotiating room.

[phonics]

Harold defending George Galloway is all types of :drool:

[ItalAussie]

And at least one of them was a Jew and a young Theo Paphitis, or however you spell his name.
Wait, what?

[Lee]

I'm genuinely quite angry about the way he's going on. I know they generally take the average voter to be thick, but you'd need to be dense to consider this anything more than an embarrassment. A British Prime Minster scrabbling around Europe to 'win' a few non-binding 'reforms' which they've chipped away at constantly, all to reach an end game we already knew was coming.

Well done Dave, you wanker.

Why would you be angry. We all know the 'renegotiation' has been bollocks from the beginning. Cameron would much rather have not bothered at all and I suspect he thought he was in for another coalition with the Lib Dems which would have put a stop to any referendum anyway. He made a promise he never thought he'd have to keep. The referendum won't be about the new terms. There are more important arguments to be made by either side.. That said, I do think some of what he claims to have won - combined with him being popular - will be enough to convince some to vote for remain.

The Galloway stuff is mental. In Farage and Galloway you have two of the least liked politicians in the country sharing a stage. There are good arguments for leaving the EU and the leave lot might well completely fuck it on the basis of having two morons leading their campaign. They'd better hope Johnson chucks his lot in with them. I think he will, so they'll get away with it. But what the fuck were they thinking?

[GS]

I understand 'spin', but there's a point where it moves beyond 'spin' and outright becomes trying to take people for fools. It's like when Labour refused to allow a referendum on some of the treaty changes in their last term.

[phonics]

Best PM of this generation, mate.

[GS]

He's much better than Miliband would have been, so for that we must be thankful.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold defending George Galloway is all types of :drool:

I haven't defended him. I will defend his views on the EU, because he is right.

[QE Harold Flair]

Wait, what?

He says in the video he's an Israeli and starts shouting that he won't listen to Galloway.

[Lewis]

Owen Jones has BOTTLED IT, and so has Theresa May. She obviously isn't bothered about being leader anymore.

[Lee]

Johnson is being an egotistical twat.

[Toby]

So, 23rd of June. Slap bang in the middle of the Euros and only six weeks after local/Scottish Parliament elections. Seems like daft timing to me but that's probably what they were gunning for.

[Toby]

Gove says, "Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?"

:harold:

[Lewis]

Isn't bollocks timing more likely to get the pensioners and mentals out?

[Toby]

It's more that the campaigns will be ignored, which suits Remain more than Leave.

[QE Harold Flair]

Gove says, "Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?"

:harold:

What's funny about that?

[Toby]

It's ripped word for word from the SNP playbook.

[QE Harold Flair]

But we're much bigger than just Scotland, so it's fair comment.

[Toby]

http://www.fish-n-force.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/largemouth_bass_swimming_hg_clr1.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

Okay, then.

[Yevrah]

So talks have not progressed. Rumours are that a few Eastern European states are not agreeing anything regarding benefits and the French are blocking anything they would see as giving more freedom to the City of London. Polls are 52% Remain and 48% Leave and unless Cameron gets something soon, the momentum is going to swing against him.

The 'negotiation' is just a bag of shit.

It's going to be a leave vote.

[GS]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/michael-gove-why-im-backing-leave/

This is a fairly impressive argument, whichever side of the fence you're on.

[Yevrah]

If we do leave, what happens to all the people living here on a passport from an EU country and what happens to all the Brits currently living in EU countries?

Is the answer a clear one?

[Boydy]

Oh god, I hope all those fucking Brits living in the Spanish Costas aren't going to come back. :sick:

[Lee]

Half of them would probably be straight in prison.

[Yevrah]

:D to both.

Seriously though, does no one actually know?

[Boydy]

From that Gove article: "We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country."

That's not true, is it? Gordon Brown cut the VAT rate back around 2008/9, didn't he? The steel thing might be right, I dunno. But the house building thing sounds like bullshit. How and why does the EU stop that?

[Boydy]

Just got to this part: "The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves"

I'm done. Fuck off.

[Lee]

The EU doesn't just make some rules and poor old Britain has to abide by them. We're as much a part of the decision making process as any of the other members.

[Toby]

:D to both.

Seriously though, does no one actually know?

Not definitively, because it would have to be negotiated after the vote. In all likelihood, since there's a more or less equal amount of Brits in the EU and EU nationals in Britain, it would be agreed that they could apply for indefinite right to remain.

[QE Harold Flair]

The EU doesn't just make some rules and poor old Britain has to abide by them. We're as much a part of the decision making process as any of the other members.

We're a part who is always voted against, yes.

[Lee]

If you take the time to look at voting records in the European Council you'll see that you're wrong.

[Lewis]

The Democratic Unionists are officially out.

'Where do the bureaucrats return to for sanctuary? To the European Union!'

:drool:

[GS]

The EU doesn't just make some rules and poor old Britain has to abide by them. We're as much a part of the decision making process as any of the other members.

There's 28 countries with vastly different cultures, living standards and economic and political circumstances trying to create rules which apply across the board. It simply does not and cannot work.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you take the time to look at voting records in the European Council you'll see that you're wrong.

I must have missed those, where are they? I expect we vote for a lot of mundane shit, certainly. GS has summed up what I was going to say.

[Shindig]

Without the EU, Jimmy would be working 75-hour weeks.

[Lee]

I must have missed those, where are they? I expect we vote for a lot of mundane shit, certainly. GS has summed up what I was going to say.

I disagree with both you and GS on that but then that's why we'll be voting differently. Although I don't advocate a European state in which everything is made the same anyway. I believe that we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe (but acknowlege that there are some big differences East to West and North to South) and I identify as European above all else so it's not something we're ever likely to agree on anyway. Needless to say I don't think the opposite view is illegtimate and I don't think most people will be voting on the same basis as I will.

I just googled 'EU Council Voting History'. I can do so again and get you the URL if you like but you're right, it's very boring stuff.

[GS]

You may not advocate a European state, but that's the inevitable trajectory of the Eurozone states. There is only so long that they will be prepared to accept British intransigence if it is seen to impede the effective functioning of the Eurozone. Decisions can and will be taken to benefit the Eurozone. Cameron's "red card" will never be implemented. The Eurozone have already bullied the Greeks into conforming to the wider (i.e. German) will - what fucks will they give about the UK once we vote "Remain" and are seen to put the issue of membership to bed? We will be dragged further into it - we voted for a single market, and within 20 years it was clear it was moving towards political union. Where will it be in 20 years, if it hasn't collapsed as a consequence of its own fecklessness?

This isn't a vote for the organisation you want it to be - rather a vote for what it is. A directionless, ill-functioning shambles which has made a cock up of the Eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and has no unified voice on the major foreign policy issues of the day.

[Lewis]

I'm genuinely interested in how you think 'we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe'. Surely any notion of similarity breaks down as soon as you can't even speak the same language as the rest of them? Now, were we to join the United States...

[GS]

I'm genuinely interested in how you think 'we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe'. Surely any notion of similarity breaks down as soon as you can't even speak the same language as the rest of them? Now, were we to join the United States...

Exactly.

[Byron]

The treatment of the Greeks is what swung it for me. I'm very much a lefty (I voted Green for fucks sake) but I cannot and will not live in a European superstate. I'd end up taking advantage of Miss Byron's citizenship and moving to America.

[Lee]

You may not advocate a European state, but that's the inevitable trajectory of the Eurozone states. There is only so long that they will be prepared to accept British intransigence if it is seen to impede the effective functioning of the Eurozone. Decisions can and will be taken to benefit the Eurozone. Cameron's "red card" will never be implemented. The Eurozone have already bullied the Greeks into conforming to the wider (i.e. German) will - what fucks will they give about the UK once we vote "Remain" and are seen to put the issue of membership to bed? We will be dragged further into it - we voted for a single market, and within 20 years it was clear it was moving towards political union. Where will it be in 20 years, if it hasn't collapsed as a consequence of its own fecklessness?

This isn't a vote for the organisation you want it to be - rather a vote for what it is. A directionless, ill-functioning shambles which has made a cock up of the Eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and has no unified voice on the major foreign policy issues of the day.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do advocate a European state, but not one which has all nations therein being exactly the same as one another. There should be significant freedom with in a confederation of European nations led by a directly elected executive. The EU is the best existing way of us getting where I'd like us to be but I don't really care much about it as an entity. I do get a bit annoyed that it's, in my opinion of course, misrepresented as being an undemocratic bully of the UK but whatever.

Language I don't think is a massive issue, just as it isn't in international business. Everybody speaks English anyway. That's a slice of luck for us, but I don't think (it's impossible to say though) that I'd much care if that language were German or Spanish.

Perhaps shared culture isn't the best way of explaining. Shared cultural heritage would be better. As Europeans we've spent centuries fighting the same wars, being influenced by the same political movements, music, art and literature. In those ways the continent has always been borderless. I would accept entirely that there has always been a 'different-ness' about Britain rooted in us being an island and a maritime nation. But then all nations have some differences and I don't think ours are so stark as to merit us being thought of as separate to the rest of Europe.

Perhaps I've been reading the wrong history for years. Perhaps you have. It doesn't much matter, I think our respective views on this are fixed anyway so it's not something I have the inclination to debate. I'm not interested in persuading anybody.

I acknowledge that many of the reasons I'm giving could equally be relevant to the UK, the UK joining the US, the old Empire. Fair enough. I'm not arguing for any European exceptionalism. As I've said many times I personally identify as European. Other things too (I'm proud of being from Leicester, Leicestershire, being an East Midlander, a Midlander and an Englishman - and also believe in many political powers being exercised at those very local levels - but don't care much for Britain or the UK) but European above all else. Which I suppose is just a result of upbringing. My dad has always been ferociously Europhile so there's your early influence but I've never been dissuaded from that feeling myself and it's not as though I'm a person who doesn't expose myself to differing views either through reading or interaction with other people.

So there's a large part of it which is emotional for me as well, if that's the right term to use. I'd strongly prefer for us to vote to remain part of the EU (and I believe that's what will happen, by a comfortable margin) but am under no illusion that us doing so means that people are sanctioning the direction of travel I myself would like to see us follow. At the same time I'm not going to cry if people vote to leave either. I'll still have the same beliefs and self-identify in the same way. It would be a set back in terms of the UK being a part of what I'd like to see develop in Europe but such is life.

[Byron]

You mention that there is a 'different-ness' about Britain but I'd argue it's more than that.

As a nation we've always sat on the fringes. Our geographical position is the obvious place to start but if you look through our history you see it dotted. The Romans never fully subjugated Britain and the Normans needed about a year of burning down the north to get there. Throughout the medieval era we spent pretty much the best part of 300 years at war with the French and we were the ones who split off from the Roman Catholic Church because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Our language and legal systems took a different route to that of mainland Europe and as you mention, we are a maritime nation, we traded with large sections of the world and the main principle of Britain was to extend it's reach far beyond it's shores. You'd argue Europe managed that as well, but it was only really the Dutch, French and Portuguese and even then it wasn't on the same scale. Throughout modern history we've been far closer to the Americans than Europe, who have always treated us as the weird kid on the outside, the one you have to invite to birthday parties so he's not the odd one out.

[Lee]

You may not advocate a European state, but that's the inevitable trajectory of the Eurozone states. There is only so long that they will be prepared to accept British intransigence if it is seen to impede the effective functioning of the Eurozone. Decisions can and will be taken to benefit the Eurozone. Cameron's "red card" will never be implemented. The Eurozone have already bullied the Greeks into conforming to the wider (i.e. German) will - what fucks will they give about the UK once we vote "Remain" and are seen to put the issue of membership to bed? We will be dragged further into it - we voted for a single market, and within 20 years it was clear it was moving towards political union. Where will it be in 20 years, if it hasn't collapsed as a consequence of its own fecklessness?

This isn't a vote for the organisation you want it to be - rather a vote for what it is. A directionless, ill-functioning shambles which has made a cock up of the Eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and has no unified voice on the major foreign policy issues of the day.

Just on the bit about us voting to be part of the single market and it becoming political union, that isn't true from an EU (or its predecessors) perspective. Everything suggests that if there was any deception at all (I wasn't born so don't know) it was one undertaken by British politicians.

The EU has always been about ever closer union, particularly economic and political. That was the transparent ambition of the founders of the Coal and Steel Community. The French vetoed a European Army as early as 1952. The Treaty of Rome was designed for the creation of unified defence and political union. The single currency was slated for 1980 and was being planned openly a decade prior. British politicians knew what they were getting in to. If they hid that then that's an issue for them, not the European Union.

[Lee]

You mention that there is a 'different-ness' about Britain but I'd argue it's more than that.

As a nation we've always sat on the fringes. Our geographical position is the obvious place to start but if you look through our history you see it dotted. The Romans never fully subjugated Britain and the Normans needed about a year of burning down the north to get there. Throughout the medieval era we spent pretty much the best part of 300 years at war with the French and we were the ones who split off from the Roman Catholic Church because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Our language and legal systems took a different route to that of mainland Europe and as you mention, we are a maritime nation, we traded with large sections of the world and the main principle of Britain was to extend it's reach far beyond it's shores. You'd argue Europe managed that as well, but it was only really the Dutch, French and Portuguese and even then it wasn't on the same scale. Throughout modern history we've been far closer to the Americans than Europe, who have always treated us as the weird kid on the outside, the one you have to invite to birthday parties so he's not the odd one out.


It's an argument you can make legitimately may different ways but I feel how I feel. It's an interesting discussion but not one I have any desire to debate with the intention of claiming to be right and you wrong (which I know isn't what you're doing here). I've done it a million times before and it never ends well. :D

[Lewis]

Scientology is based on better history than that.

[Lee]

Scientology is based on better history than that.

I do read 'proper' history rather than just making stuff up. What I have taken in has reinforced my views but I daresay the same stands for most people.

I don't approach what I read with academic rigour, since I'm not (interested in) studying it. I doubt that I'm uniquely susceptible to interpreting what I absorb as having elements supportive of what I already believe.

Anyway, I don't claim a monopoly on truth.

[QE Harold Flair]

I disagree with both you and GS on that but then that's why we'll be voting differently. Although I don't advocate a European state in which everything is made the same anyway. I believe that we share broadly the same culture across much of Europe (but acknowlege that there are some big differences East to West and North to South) and I identify as European above all else so it's not something we're ever likely to agree on anyway. Needless to say I don't think the opposite view is illegtimate and I don't think most people will be voting on the same basis as I will.

I just googled 'EU Council Voting History'. I can do so again and get you the URL if you like but you're right, it's very boring stuff.

Very broadly, maybe. What you advocate for is one giant monoculture, it seems. Which is odd. If I went to a different country I want it to be different, not the same culture in another land. And it used to be.

[Lewis]

Yeah, but some interpretations are weaker than others. How can you cite 'centuries fighting the same wars' as an aspect of similarity?

[Yevrah]

Lee - I thought your desire for us to stay in the EU started and finished with the will to maintain easy travel between countries? Where's all this other bobbins come from?

[Lee]

Very broadly, maybe. What you advocate for is one giant monoculture, it seems. Which is odd. If I went to a different country I want it to be different, not the same culture in another land. And it used to be..

I've said the opposite above.


Yeah, but some interpretations are weaker than others. How can you cite 'centuries fighting the same wars' as an aspect of similarity?

They're an aspect of shared history which is an important part of developing shared culture. We've fought alongside other Europeans as allies as much as against as enemies over the centuries. Often with the aim of maintaining a balance of power across the continent as a subplot to self-interest too.

Obviously you will think my interpretation of histories (it isn't just about history of course but it's as good an example as any) is weaker than your own as we disagree fundamentally. But at the very least I think my interpretation is intellectually consistent. It might be wrong-headed but we're all exposed to that danger.

[Lee]

[[QUOTE=Yevrah;68199]Lee - I thought your desire for us to stay in the EU started and finished with the will to maintain easy travel between countries? Where's all this other bobbins come from?

There's nothing in posting about now that I haven't always believed. I do believe there are a number of practical benefits to EU membership but they aren't my primary concern. I've at least hinted at my pro-Europeanism before on here but perhaps not is as committed a fashion as I am today. Mainly because I don't find a debate about how I identify as an individual to be something that worthy of discussion. My views on this are more or less settled.

I think it's a little uncharitable to describe my stance as 'bobbins', presumably on the basis that you disagree and that mine is almost certainly a minority views. But there you go.

[QE Harold Flair]

.

I've said the opposite above.


But you said we're all culturally similar? So I assume that's something you like and want to maintain? I think we are not, and it shows.

[Yevrah]

I think it's a little uncharitable to describe my stance as 'bobbins', presumably on the basis that you disagree and that mine is almost certainly a minority views. But there you go.

Perhaps, but normally your points of view are very well thought through and argued in the same manner. This seems anything but - by your own admission you can't even be arsed to explain it fully.

[Lee]

Very broadly, maybe. What you advocate for is one giant monoculture, it seems. Which is odd. If I went to a different country I want it to be different, not the same culture in another land. And it used to be.


But you said we're all culturally similar? So I assume that's something you like and want to maintain? I think we are not, and it shows.

Yes, I value our similarities and want to maintain them. But I certainly don't want to force homogeneity where there are differences. Differences I've already referred to above. These also should be celebrated. I see no reason why the two desires cannot coexist.

I know you think we are not. I think we are. We could spend all night finding different ways of saying the same thing. It's why I don't spend time debating this particular issue on here.

[Lee]

Perhaps, but normally your points of view are very well thought through and argued in the same manner. This seems anything but - by your own admission you can't even be arsed to explain it fully.

I have explained it. I just don't fancy writing an essay on it. There's nothing in my explanation of my views that isn't thought through or which is inconsistent, even if you think my stance is very wrong. If you see inconsistencies or lack of thought then I'm more than happy to address those on here.

I'm certainly not refusing to discuss the issue; I just don't want to engage in something which ends up with me trying to persuade you that you're wrong and vice versa. It isn't what I come to TTH for these days. Actually it's the same in life. I don't discuss politics as a rule. It mostly ends in argument and life is too short.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I value our similarities and want to maintain them. But I certainly don't want to force homogeneity where there are differences. Differences I've already referred to above. These also should be celebrated. I see no reason why the two desires cannot coexist.

No, I never implied you want to force it. You want it to happen naturally, but you obviously still want it, then? And why should differences be celebrated? Never quite got the thinking there. I do not celebrate most Islamic societies, do you?

[GS]

One could argue that 'Europe', being everything west of the Balkans, has a shared culture arising from the long-term position of the Catholic Church post-1054 and the Great Schism. Granted the Reformation did result in significant divergence, but this was largely one of theological dispute. The foundation of the faith, and the impact on the legal and cultural development of the countries over which the Catholic Church had 'spiritual jurisdiction' are not massively different. That, however, is about the extent of it.

If one is looking for a shared culture, we have far more in common with the former countries within the Empire which had dominion status before WWII; that is, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. If we extend this to include the United States (borne as it was of Imperial expansion), we have a number of countries with similar parliamentary systems, similar values, the same language and comparable cultures to what was termed, at the time, the 'mother country'. These are the countries over which we can claim a shared cultural background and foundation. We cannot do this with mainland Europe.

Similarly, we made a fairly 'seamless' transition to constitutional monarchy post the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. This should be compared against the French experience (Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Republic) in the space of less than 80 years, Germany (unification and the Second Reich, Republic, Dictatorship, the Third Reich, partition, reunification) in the same of 120 years, Poland (partition, reconstituted, invasion and partition, dictatorship, burgeoning democracy), the Balkans and the break-up of Yugoslavia, Spain under Franco etc. etc. etc.

The experience of mainland Europe since Napoleon was marching his armies through Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland and Russia pushes them towards political and economic union to avoid another European war. This is entirely reasonable. Our experience is simply not the same. We've won our wars of consequence in Europe, starting with the thorough thumping of Napoleon and moving through to the 20th century. We're a maritime nation, mainland Europe isn't. Our Empire was decolonised, but it happened under a democratic government and as part of a deliberate policy. Compare this to the French - which collapsed in disaster in Indochina and Algeria (or if you want to look at the Second Empire, where Napoleon III was captured by the Germans - or the First Empire where Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo), Germany (the Second Reich which collapsed after WWI and the Third Reich after WWII), the Austro-Hungarians or the Ottomans which fell in WWI.

To argue that we have a shared culture and a shared historical experience is, in my view anyway, a completely erroneous view to take of history. There are tens of languages around the 28 member states of the European Union - even in the modern day, it would be impossible to put 28 'normal people' from these 28 countries in a room and have them reach a common view on anything. This is because all of the countries within the EU are different in their own way. Therefore, I think this idea of a 'shared history' leading to a 'shared culture' is a nonsense. Britain has, generally speaking, stood as a bastion of consistency (with the exception of Ireland) since the 1707 Act of Union whilst mainland Europe has torn itself apart.

There are arguments to be made in favour of the EU, but this idea is not one of them.

[Lee]

Now that's a quality post.

[Lee]

No, I never implied you want to force it. You want it to happen naturally, but you obviously still want it, then? And why should differences be celebrated? Never quite got the thinking there. I do not celebrate most Islamic societies, do you?

I'm infinitely more interested in getting a counter attacking style of football working on FM than I am in having a conversation with you about the merits of various cultures.

[QE Harold Flair]

Great, thanks for letting me know. Counter attack is a waste of time.

[Lee]

The SI forums say different but I've wasted enough time trying and failing so I'm going with something different. I always fucking cave and get this have, then get mardy and put it on the shelf for months because I'm shit at it.

[Lewis]

Plus one for GS praise. The only thing that has traditionally united Europe is the imminent threat of Asiatic barbarism. Moors, Mongols, and Marxists. Migrants? I think it would be fair to say that each time the continent was saved in spite of dithering attempts at unity as well.

[GS]

I'm wasted on Team Spreadsheet, clearly.

[Luke Emia]

What we need to do is get the Nordics. The Dutch, Germans, Austrians, Swiss and maybe the Belgians and make our own little club. Fuck the French though they can slum it with the third world countries like Spain & Greece.

[Lewis]

The Hanseatic League II: No Papists.

[GS]

Robert Peston ‏@Peston 20m20 minutes ago
.@BorisJohnson will back leaving EU, I understand, & as I just said on @itvnews - & we'll know the why and how tmrw night

Drama, lads. Drama.

[Lee]

That's Boris gambling on being PM for conference season. The balls on him.

[QE Harold Flair]

It would be nice if he actually believed it rather than it being some political move.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He probably does actually believe it, but there are risks attached politically if everything goes Dave's way, as it generally does in life. Gove, on the other hand, doesn't give a fuck.

[Charlie]

We not having a poll? I'm leaning on the fence, but currently in leave's garden.

[Byron]

The mop-haired one himself is campaigning for Brexit. I'm no political savant but I can't imagine Dave is too pleased with Johnson and Gove being against him. They could put together a formidable campaign.

[GS]

Johnson offers the Outers a likeable figurehead who can connect with the wider public, but there's no conceivable way that "Remain" are chucking the sort of lead they have (in phone polls, anyway) right now.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Leave's first job is to crush Farage and get him well away from the scene. He will cost the Out campaign 10% of the vote and more if he's prominent.

[GS]

Presumably Vote Leave will get the official designation. There's a place for this "Go" crowd to appeal to the base and focus on getting them out, but that's really the extent of it. You have to wonder what the likes of David Davis are at nailing their colours to that particular mast.

Farage's hubris could well cost them greatly as the various news outlets will give him undue prominence during the campaign. Hopefully Boris taking a 'figurehead' role will allow then to relegate Farage to the fringes, with Douglas Carswell seen as the "acceptable" (and "legitimate", give he's their only MP) face of UKIP 'proper'.

[QE Harold Flair]

Johnson offers the Outers a likeable figurehead who can connect with the wider public, but there's no conceivable way that "Remain" are chucking the sort of lead they have (in phone polls, anyway) right now.

Several internet polls have leave way ahead. I still think people will vote for the 'safe' option. Even though it isn't safe.

[QE Harold Flair]

Leave's first job is to crush Farage and get him well away from the scene. He will cost the Out campaign 10% of the vote and more if he's prominent.

Only if people are as idiotic as to vote on identity politics. This only came about because of this excellent man.

[Yevrah]

"Brexit" might just be the worst one of these ever.

[Lee]

Johnson's speech was a shambles. He's talking about a reformed EU rather than leaving. He won't debate the issue with opponents from his party, or share a stage with the other main 'outers'. I'm not sure he's all that bothered beyond being able to place himself as the Eurosceptic leadership candidate once Dave goes.

Also, he is getting really fucking fat.

[QE Harold Flair]

Michael Gove should lead it.

[Lee]

Gove is intellectually the best they have. Not sure how popular he is likely to be with voters though. Certainly less so than Johnson.

[QE Harold Flair]

Johnson lacks credibility, but that might not matter since a lot of people are idiots.

[Spoonsky]

I was under the impression, from about a year ago maybe, that Farage was a pretty popular politician no matter what people thought of UKIP. Was I wrong or has he nosedived since then?

[Lee]

He has always been popular with his target audience but very unpopular in the country generally. Polls going back a fair bit further than the general election campaign have consistenly had him among the most disliked politicians.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Farage is marmite. Boris tends to top the net popularity ratings for politicans by quite a long way.

[QE Harold Flair]

He has always been popular with his target audience but very unpopular in the country generally. Polls going back a fair bit further than the general election campaign have consistenly had him among the most disliked politicians.

I think it's one of those weird things where he was voted both popular and unpopular.

[Toby]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbwRLsEW4AEZrXs.jpg

Twenty eight percent of UKIP voters planning to vote to remain. :cab:

[QE Harold Flair]

Fucking racists.

[GS]

Someone throw a new poll up here and we can see where we're at "as a community".

[Lewis]

Twenty-eight per cent is about a million of their votes isn't it? You would think they were mainly a protest vote.

[GS]

I suspect it's the same logic as SNP supporters who would vote NO!. You can vote for them despite the fact you don't support their 'raison d'être', because there's always the safety net of a referendum which prevents you from having to go all in.

I'm curious to know if there's anyone here who actually thinks they'll change their mind as the referendum nears.

[Yevrah]

I was remain for a fair while, but am now firmly in the leave camp. The 'renegotiation' was the final straw.

If someone presents a tangible argument backed up by facts (rather than 5 MILLION TEH JOBS!!!!) as to why we'd be economically fucked if we left then I'd switch back in a heartbeat, but given that's not happened so far I'd be surprised if it does in the next four months.

[Yevrah]

If we could fuck Scotland off while we're at it then the whole thing could go down as a right result.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35625067

[Toby]

That's what I'm hoping for tbh. Scotland in the EU with the UK outside would have a pretty strong bargaining position. Fuck all your trade deals, everything's moving to Edinburgh.

[Lewis]

I plan to declare myself independent if we vote to stay in. The country I'm otherwise happy to be part of can't just ignore me like that.

[GS]

That's what I'm hoping for tbh. Scotland in the EU with the UK outside would have a pretty strong bargaining position. Fuck all your trade deals, everything's moving to Edinburgh.

I do find it a somewhat strange position for the nationalists to take on this. If you advocate leaving the UK because you want 'true independence', pursuing EU membership (where you'd be obliged to accept the Euro as a condition of entry) hardly seems like the most expedient way of achieving your goals. The EU project is only ever going one way - a single currency and the political and financial union required to make it work. A federalised UK outside the EU is far more likely to give you what you want, if your position is indeed a principled one of 'independence' and not some delayed reactionary victory over the English that you've been waiting for since Flodden Field.

On the subject of Scotland in the EU with the UK outside, you do wonder what would happen in those circumstances. We have a land border with the south too. There's a common travel area, but presumably we'd have to do something to prevent the Republic being used as a backdoor for economic migration into the UK. I can't imagine we'll be putting border controls up again, but it's the one issue (from a wholly selfish perspective) that would give me pause for thought.

Boris' article in the Telegraph outlining his reasons - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html

[Yevrah]

It's clearly because loads of Scots hate the English.

[Toby]

I do find it a somewhat strange position for the nationalists to take on this. If you advocate leaving the UK because you want 'true independence', pursuing EU membership (where you'd be obliged to accept the Euro as a condition of entry) hardly seems like the most expedient way of achieving your goals.

This is a lazy argument and they're really not the same. An independent Scotland in the EU would have far more say over its own affairs than the Scottish Government currently has within the UK.

And I don't see much evidence Scotland would be "obliged to accept the Euro".


It's clearly because loads of Scots hate the English.

:)

[Boydy]

I'm leave mostly due to the Eurozone's treatment of Greece but I'm not all that bothered either way and may change before I actually vote.

I find it odd people are so passionate about it either way. I don't think things would change all that much if we left.

[GS]

This is a lazy argument and they're really not the same. An independent Scotland in the EU would have far more say over its own affairs than the Scottish Government currently has within the UK.

:)

An independent Scotland in the EU would almost certainly have to accept the euro as a condition of entry into the EU, particularly if some of the discussed-to-death issues arising from Scottish secession came to pass (e.g. capital flight to London). Also, the current oil price collapse (with no end in sight) creates a significant black hole in proposed Scottish finances which would no longer be plugged by London. You'd need eurozone membership so the ECB could act as a lender of last resort, as you wouldn't have one if you wanted to peg yourselves to sterling (this assumes no currency union with rUK).

In those circumstances, you're ceding sovereignty over key economic decisions - particularly interest rates. Whereas the UK sets them for the sterling area (one country, c. 65M), the eurozone sets them for a swathe of countries and hundreds of millions of people. There's a good chance Scotland could end up in the same position as Ireland, Portugal or Greece where centralised monetary policy - taken for the eurozone as a whole - is punishingly awful for smaller countries whose economic circumstances are not aligned with the wider 'needs' of the eurozone itself.

We could talk all night about the wide array of ways in which EU law takes supremacy over the UK - Scotland would be no different. Similarly, Scotland (circa 6M?) - as a new entrant - would have little clout in the discussions on policy - particularly where you consider the dominant positions of France (66m) and Germany (81m). If you think you're not listened to now, you've just seen how little the EU were prepared to cede to the UK on issues of trivia with a perceived danger we might fuck the whole thing off. The UK is the fifth biggest economy in the world, a member of NATO, a permanent member of the UN security council and deemed to be (albeit an ever-decreasing role) a key 'bridge' between Europe and the Americans.

They're hardly going to fall over themselves to bring Scotland into the fold - you would have to conform, take the euro, buy into ever closer union and in 20 years time the independence you voted for would, if current trajectories are followed, be eroded more and more by Brussels.

If you want genuine independence, then it would need to happen outside the EU. If that's part of the UK or not is a different matter, but it's irreconcilable to support 'true' independence whilst advocating continued EU membership post-secession.

[Toby]

I'm not all that keen to rehash old arguments about Scottish independence, but suffice to say I don't think it's as cut and dried as you generally liked to make out. There's little point saying more than that.

[GS]

It would be good if you could expand, as I'm genuinely interested to understand the logic behind it.

[Toby]

It was all discussed before in the old board thread.

[Lewis]

Scottish nationalism is merely the most useful vehicle for anti-Conservative/English sentiment, so the 'logic' can only be found by defining independence in relation to that. Being annexed by Russia would constitute independence.

[GS]

Circumstances have changed since then owing to:


The Greek crisis;
The migrant crisis;
The EU's intransigence during Cameron's renegotiation;
The "No" vote in the Scottish referendum;
Wider EU foreign policy with regards to Putin and Russia, and in Syria more generally; and
The fact we actually have a referendum on EU membership and the campaign is under way.


I think it merits further debate, as the issues are different and we have seen how the EU has reacted to a variety of new circumstances. I think you can't square this particular circle, which is why you're reluctant to discuss it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Even if yoiu believe you would have a bit more independence within Europe than you have in Great Britain, it's still nowhere near independence.

[GS]

Scottish nationalism is merely the most useful vehicle for anti-Conservative/English sentiment, so the 'logic' can only be found by defining independence in relation to that. Being annexed by Russia would constitute independence.

It would appear so, given they would be so keen to illogically (and immediately) cede vast tracts of their independence to Brussels.

[Toby]

It's more that I've remembered how utterly boring it is to discuss the issue with you. You've never come across as "genuinely interested", but that you simply believe not only that you're right but that the other side is only supported by idiots.

[Toby]

Even if yoiu believe you would have a bit more independence within Europe than you have in Great Britain, it's still nowhere near independence.

That's fine. I support Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, I don't care if that constitutes independence full stop.

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you sure you're not just bitter? No offence, but that seems to me what most Scots who want independence are.

[Toby]

Cool.

[GS]

It's more that I've remembered how utterly boring it is to discuss the issue with you. You've never come across as "genuinely interested", but that you simply believe not only that you're right but that the other side is only supported by idiots.

I am genuinely interested on this as, again, I don't understand the rationale. If it's rooted in an internationalist stance, that's fine, but internationalism isn't a view that easily aligns itself with the nationalism (and 'shaping our own destiny' angle) advocated by the SNP and the "Yes" movement.

To be quite frank, many of the advocates of "Yes" (the majority of whom presumably support continued EU membership) appear to be interested in independence only insofar as it extends to throwing off "the auld enemy". Which is, in 2016, a bit pathetic.

I am not suggesting you are one such individual - but I am genuinely interested in how these viewpoints are reached. I don't live in Scotland, so I don't know and can't comment beyond the impressions already outlined.

[Toby]

You can repeat it all you like, I see no reason to believe it's true, and have little interest in seeing whatever opinion I give met with a condescending essay in response. If your interest is as genuine as you say it is, there's plenty written about it elsewhere.

[GS]

Yes, if only the issues were so simple they could be boiled down into two or three short sentences at a time.

[QE Harold Flair]

Cool.

[Davgooner]

I'm for remain at the minute. As Jimmy's eluded too, most of the politicans for leaving have their eyes on reducing yet further regulation and taxes on their chums in the City more than anything else. Just look at some of 'leave' twats.

I smell a few tasty doorstep encounters with local UKIP twats over the coming months.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbz3hMvW8AAW1LH.jpg

The Stance Strikes Again.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm for remain at the minute. As Jimmy's eluded too, most of the politicans for leaving have their eyes on reducing yet further regulation and taxes on their chums in the City more than anything else. Just look at some of 'leave' twats.

I smell a few tasty doorstep encounters with local UKIP twats over the coming months.

There's twats on either side. Just look at June fucking Sarpong and almost the entire Labour lot.

[Jimmy Floyd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbz3hMvW8AAW1LH.jpg

The Stance Strikes Again.

It's the weirdest thing ever. It kind of sums up Dave's Tories.

[Lee]

The way he's eating Boris will be dead before the vote. I know he's never been slim but fucking hell.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Dave donning Boris everywhere. It's been a rather clueless strategy from the latter.

[QE Harold Flair]

The strategy of Dave isn't going to go down well at all. This idea that we don't know what will happen if we leave the EU carries no weight when we DO know what will happen if we stay. Those who decided to stay aboard the Titanic knew what was going to happen as well. Sometimes freedom requires risks.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Are you suggesting we push women and children off the lifeboats?

[Lewis]

I saw a bit of Ed Miliband at his weirdo best earlier. Get lost, lad.

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you suggesting we push women and children off the lifeboats?

Why are women more important than men?

[Lewis]

I also enjoyed ITV News' day out in Clacton. Voters don't understand the issues, they're all bitter because Spain nicked their holiday-goers, and the only people they could find were an old pair of exiled Cockneys who don't want terrorists moving next door. I'm not saying it isn't accurate, but it isn't a great look.

[QE Harold Flair]

Sounds balanced.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why are women more important than men?

Basic chivalry.

[GS]

I can see clear logic in Boris backing Brexit, but I'm not sure about his strategy for ANNOUNCING it in the manner he did. He's made a right mess of it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Basic chivalry.

Fine by me, but that's not the world feminists want (or so they claim).

[Henry]

Not sure if this should be a personality contest between Dave and Boris, which it's in danger of being.

I'm torn. It'll be interesting either way.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Not sure if this should be a personality contest between Dave and Boris, which it's in danger of being.

I'm torn. It'll be interesting either way.

It will be. Dave, whilst firm, was fairly common room bully-ish today, which is fine in a Commons setting, but hardly respects the idea of people being able to make their own minds up, and by slamming Boris (who is there to be slammed) he's opening himself up to it getting personal in both directions.

[simon]

'Brexit' sounds so shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

Fascinating live broadcast, with 9 people watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uunM67dTRkM&feature=youtu.be

[GS]

Some of the discussion in here is fairly interesting, albeit in a fairly 'bitesize' chunk:

http://video.ft.com/4764529751001/Brexit-debated-EU-and-UK-better-off/World

[Lewis]

Peter Mandelson sounded like he hasn't actually thought about this since 2001.

[QE Harold Flair]

Perenial twat and blusterer, Chris Brant, lieing consistently and trying to speak over and interrupt Nigel Farage:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdI28OM3Cf0

[Lewis]

David Owen sez leave. What is going on?

[GS]

Fantastic.

There was some very interesting analysis in the Telegraph (yes, lads, I read the Telegraph) earlier, which basically said that two-thirds of the 'electorate' are Eurosceptic but many simply aren't prepared to vote leave solely on the basis of economic impact. That would seem to be the key argument the Leave side will need to make - why you'll be economically better off outside the EU.

[Dquincy]

'Brexit' sounds so shit.

Agreed, proper wanky nickname for this shit.

[Lewis]

David Cameron was at a BAE plant this afternoon giving it the big'un about how selling weapons to Saudi Arabia 'safeguard[s] jobs and and skills and investment by making sure we can sell these things around the world', and the European parliament has just banned arms exports. :harold:

[Boydy]

Good on the EU.

You'd think if you were selling weapons to horrible bastards, you'd not go shouting about it though.

[Jimmy Floyd]

My opinion of David Cameron goes in cycles, and at the moment it's at the 'I fucking hate him' stage.

He gets away with fucking everything as well. Lucky general.

[Toby]

Do you mean banned arms exports to Saudi Arabia or banned them full stop? If the latter that probably seals a leave vote given how much money Britain makes there.

[Boydy]

Do you mean banned arms exports to Saudi Arabia or banned them full stop? If the latter that probably seals a leave vote given how much money Britain makes there.

Just Saudi Arabia.

[Toby]

That makes sense.

[Lewis]

They're going to get them from somewhere, so it might as well be from us (Alan Clark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osLsGG6kBEQ) knew). The French wouldn't stand for this.

[phonics]

Haven't the French been shipping them wares for the last decade?

[Jimmy Floyd]

There are more French weapons in the Middle East than there are croissants in Picardie.

[Lewis]

Dassault seem very adept at ensuring their aircraft are selected over superior aircraft whenever corrupt countries hold trials.

[GS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

I only link to the Daily Mail on a account of the fact they're serialising it. I assume it's "legitimate", and not the sort of Ashcroft "Call me Dave" hatchet job, but I don't know. Either way, it will no doubt infuriate Harold if there's any basis for it.

Floyd will love the anti-Blair angle as well, no doubt.

[QE Harold Flair]

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[Lewis]

British troops were mired in Iraq, where they were daily being shot at and bombed. But in his three-and-a-half years as head of the Navy and Marines, Admiral Sir Alan West had never been invited to Downing Street. ‘If I’d been a member of a pop group, I would have been invited,’ he said, stung by Blair’s refusal to engage with him as an individual. Then he had an unexpected summons from Cherie. But when West arrived, she had just one request: she wanted personally to launch a ship. Cornered, the admiral said he would look into it.

Twelve Type 45 destroyers had been commissioned in 1998 — but West knew that the government wanted to cut the number to eight. So he wrote to Downing Street, saying that Cherie had been nominated to launch the 12th ship. As West had intended, Cherie’s desire to christen it with a bottle of champagne was never fulfilled — because the destroyer was never built.

Horrendous woman. I bet her and 'Hillary' had some amazing conversations.

[GS]

(Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that 23 British workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.)

That's quite an interesting fact, I think. It does not demonstrate the wider social impact of uncontrolled immigration, which would continue under EU membership.

[Lewis]

703702698357616640

Gove. GoveGoveGoveGove...

[GS]

Gove would be better at dissecting the arguments, but Boris would probably be "the people's choice" and more liable to convince waverers. Fuck knows. Hannan would be good too. Just keep Farage completely the fuck away from anything.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Gove would absolutely demolish him (or any leading politician) in a debate about anything. A Boris v Cameron debate is just two posh boys arguing about who gets first serve in that afternoon's game of whiff whaff.

It will be quality either way because it will basically entrench the Conservatives as The Natural Party of Government™.

[GS]

There was a poll recently where something like 38% of respondents had an unfavourable view of Gove, compared to 9% favourable. Granted that means there's over one in two who don't have an opinion, but you suspect it's less about policy and more about personality in these debate settings. I do agree though - Gove would be better if it was a policy-centric debate. Boris may be better if you're trying to get people 'on board'. Fuck knows.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Boris in debates (he's done plenty for the London mayoralty) is pretty woeful. He just drops in some Hugh Grant 'well, I, well' patter, throws in a classical reference or an extended metaphor, and then calls his opponent a wet sponge cake and their arguments piffle. It's not exactly going to have people racing to the polling stations to take us out of the EU.