The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[MintTrav]

"Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it)."

Just when I think I am 100% settled on voting remain I read something like this and cringe.  Using threat of war as an argument to remain is a complete nonsense.  Where do you rank European countries firing missiles at each other on the scale of biggest issues caused by leaving Mint?

Heard of the Balkan Wars?

[DungBeetle]

"Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it)."

Just when I think I am 100% settled on voting remain I read something like this and cringe.  Using threat of war as an argument to remain is a complete nonsense.  Where do you rank European countries firing missiles at each other on the scale of biggest issues caused by leaving Mint?

Heard of the Balkan Wars?

Obviously.  Answer the question.  On a scale of 1-100 what risk do you think there is of war breaking out between the UK and another European country purely because we leave the EU in the next 20 years?  It's scaremongering on a completely absurd scale and dents your credibility.  And Cameron for that matter.

[MintTrav]

"Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it)."

Just when I think I am 100% settled on voting remain I read something like this and cringe.  Using threat of war as an argument to remain is a complete nonsense.  Where do you rank European countries firing missiles at each other on the scale of biggest issues caused by leaving Mint?

Heard of the Balkan Wars?

Obviously.  Answer the question.  On a scale of 1-100 what risk do you think there is of war breaking out between the UK and another European country purely because we leave the EU in the next 20 years?  It's scaremongering on a completely absurd scale and dents your credibility.  And Cameron for that matter.

The answer to that is virtually zero, or one if you insist.

You've asked the wrong question.

[DungBeetle]

"Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it)."

Just when I think I am 100% settled on voting remain I read something like this and cringe.  Using threat of war as an argument to remain is a complete nonsense.  Where do you rank European countries firing missiles at each other on the scale of biggest issues caused by leaving Mint?

Heard of the Balkan Wars?

Obviously.  Answer the question.  On a scale of 1-100 what risk do you think there is of war breaking out between the UK and another European country purely because we leave the EU in the next 20 years?  It's scaremongering on a completely absurd scale and dents your credibility.  And Cameron for that matter.

The answer to that is virtually zero, or one if you insist.

You've asked the wrong question.

What question do you want.  50 years?  100?

You don't think NATO and the UN are reasonable brokers of peace and we'll all start shooting if career politicians like Juncker are sent on their way?

You really need to focus on different benefits of the EU than preventing European wars.

[MintTrav]

"Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it)."

Just when I think I am 100% settled on voting remain I read something like this and cringe.  Using threat of war as an argument to remain is a complete nonsense.  Where do you rank European countries firing missiles at each other on the scale of biggest issues caused by leaving Mint?

Heard of the Balkan Wars?

Obviously.  Answer the question.  On a scale of 1-100 what risk do you think there is of war breaking out between the UK and another European country purely because we leave the EU in the next 20 years?  It's scaremongering on a completely absurd scale and dents your credibility.  And Cameron for that matter.

The answer to that is virtually zero, or one if you insist.

You've asked the wrong question.

What question do you want.  50 years?  100?

You don't think NATO and the UN are reasonable brokers of peace and we'll all start shooting if career politicians like Juncker are sent on their way?

You really need to focus on different benefits of the EU than preventing European wars.

I didn't say anything about war breaking out between the UK and another European country. I also didn't say we'll all start shooting if the EU goes. I'd say the UK is one of the least likely countries for organised armed trouble to occur in or to get involved in conflict with neighbours.

Croatia is now a member and Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo have applied for membership. You don't think that conflict in that region is less likely if they are all members of the EU than if they are all operating as lone wolves?

[DungBeetle]

If they are all admitted simultaneously.  If Kosovo were admitted before Serbia you might get the opposite result.  Do you think that the UK should vote to stay in because it strengthens the EU and stops Balkan nations quarrelling?  Do you not think this is so far removed as to be of little consequence to the UK referendum?

[MintTrav]

If they are all admitted simultaneously.  If Kosovo were admitted before Serbia you might get the opposite result.  Do you think that the UK should vote to stay in because it strengthens the EU and stops Balkan nations quarrelling?  Do you not think this is so far removed as to be of little consequence to the UK referendum?

You've done it again. Straight after I point out that you're just making up stuff to disagree with, you go and do it again. One day you should try reading what the other person has written.

[DungBeetle]

If they are all admitted simultaneously.  If Kosovo were admitted before Serbia you might get the opposite result.  Do you think that the UK should vote to stay in because it strengthens the EU and stops Balkan nations quarrelling?  Do you not think this is so far removed as to be of little consequence to the UK referendum?

You've done it again. Straight after I point out that you're just making up stuff to disagree with, you go and do it again. One day you should try reading what the other person has written.

You asked about the Balkan states and I gave you an answer.  As for making things up I will leave it at the fact that voters should not take some paranoid fear of European conflicts breaking out when making their decision.  It's so far down the list as to be an irrelevance.

[neeko]

http://

Click to see full-size image.

My postal vote is here - just need to decide where to put the x

Cameron says vote remain as with a few changes it is an alliance great for business.
Corbyn says vote remain as with a few changes it is great for workers.

Amazing that they believe in totally opposite things but are saying vote the same way.

But on the leave side are the fruit loops Boris and Nigel.

I need to vote as I don't want to think back in 30 years and say I didn't. I don't think the difference between a vote either way will be gigantic. There will need to be lots of imigration to look after us all as we get old but we didn't have enough kids to be self sufficient. Security makes no difference either way, economics are marginal over the long term.

I am tempted to vote leave just to remind the political class that voters are in charge and giving a FU to them ever now and then is about the limit of my rebellion.

[redsimon]

I don't think Corbyn said a few changes to be honest.

[Woodsey]

I've been a wavering vote leave all the way the last few months, I'm persuadable the other way but not heard a compelling argument to sway me the other way yet....

[david3103]

We've heard a lot about the horrors of leaving the EU, how we would be taking a step in the dark. How peace in Europe would end. How we will be suffer an 18% fall in house prices (actually, the forecast didn't say that, it said that house prices would be 18% lower if we left than they would have been had we stayed)

We haven't heard much about the risks of staying, the potential downside to committing to stay in a relationship with a group of countries whose interests are not our interests.
We will be committed to supporting those countries that have been shoehorned into the Eurozone. Committed to a systematic increase in the centralisation of power.
Committed to remain within a flawed system and to spend our time and political capital attempting to reform it, and failing.

Although you have the opposite view to me on this subject, David, it is good to see real issues presented, whether I agree with them or not. Going through your points:

Peace in Europe - I believe there is a real risk of Europe regressing to war in the medium term if the EU were to disintegrate. I don't mean a continent-wide war, but more localised disputes escalating into military outcomes. The EU resolves a hell of a lot of conflict all the time (okay, it causes some of the conflict, but not most of it).

House Prices - I agree, exaggerated predictions are unhelpful. It is very difficult to predict this stuff and I don't believe there is solid evidence for the forecast. Osborne has missed every short and medium-term forecast he has ever set (wasn't the deficit supposed to be gone by now?), so I wouldn't trust a word he says.

Their interests are not our interests - partly true. It is true for some issues, and countries in different regions or at different stages of development will pull in opposite directions. Our interests are much closer on the big issues like climate change, terrorism, international crime, dealing with super-powers and multi-nationals. Improvements in health, safety, workers' rights, employment equality, anti-discrimination, food-labelling, and on and on are good for all of us - even when they are happening in other countries who joined later and are catching up, it is still good for us.

Supporting poorer countries - isn't that a big part of what it's all about, trying to bring them up to our level? The Euro is just one political/economic decision (an important one), which may improve or unimprove countries' positions, depending on how you see it, but it is not the main factor. The East European countries were all poor before they joined. Some were better than others, but they were all paupers compared with us. Now, most of them have improved dramatically and are catching up. It is very pleasant to go on holiday in most of them now, which it wasn't before. This is good for us too. Isn't it better for Europe as a whole to become wealthy than to have massive disparity? With the constraints that the USSR imposed now gone, continued poverty in Eastern Europe would probably have led to riots and possible spill-over to the Western part of Europe by now.

Systematic increase in the centralisation of power - this is where we just have a different world view. I believe in ever-closer union, with the benefits of shared knowledge and resources and the possibility of war continually becoming less and less likely as countries work together on many issues and become intertwined in their interests; you don't.

Flawed system - of course. I'd be interested to hear about which system isn't flawed.

We have a different world view John. But that doesn't mean we can't debate the issues.

I don't give the EU as much credit for keeping the peace as you do. Post 1945 there have been a lot of factors that contributed to peace in Europe. NATO, the UN, the collective memory of two major conflicts, plus the US/USSR tensions. In a post-Brexit future the UN and NATO will still be there, as will many other socio-political tendencies toward non-violent resolutions.

The campaign has been dominated by exaggerated claims. Osborne's house prices was just one of many.

The thing about the 'big' issues is that they are too big to rely upon an organisation as small as the EU to make progress. If climate change is something we need to address (I'm sceptical btw)  then the world needs to address it. Our membership of the EU, or not, won't make any significant difference to that issue. The other issues you mention, like health & safety, workers rights, equality and errrm, what was the last one? Oh yes, the 'may contain nuts/fish/meat' labelling. All happening in countries that are outside the EU as well as in the member states. The difference is that we, as a member country have had to adopt laws/regulations that don't reflect our reality. The Working Time Directive and the Agency Workers Regulations both caused a negative impact on workers and employers alike.

Improving the lot of poorer members? Tell that to the Greeks. It may be nice to go on holiday to Croatia these days, but it's also nice to go to India, Goa, Sri Lanka, Mexico, St Kitts, or Punta Cana. That doesn't mean that poverty is being eradicated in those countries. Nor does it mean that membership of the EU has brought about any visible improvement.

I see the world working together for the greater good as a positive thing. I just don't see how the EU is a necessary part of that process. The G20 is a far more important factor in that. I know that the EU has a voice in that gathering, but as far as I can see it only represents the Eurozone countries in that forum.

All systems are of course flawed, but IMHO the flaws increase exponentially as the system grows.

I'm still hoping for someone to answer my question about the democratic process on the EU btw.

[david3103]

I really don't like Nigel Farage, I'm not a UKIP supporter, but this is such good fun...

[TightEnd]

 

Click to see full-size image.

[TightEnd]

The Economist's Intelligence Unit on the damage Brexit would do to our economy

the exec summary is

"Brexit" will cost 6% of GDP

    Should the UK vote to leave the EU on June 23rd, the country's economic environment will be dominated by uncertainty. We expect significant volatility in the financial markets and a sharp depreciation in the pound.
    We assume that the government would act swiftly to alleviate uncertainty, notifying the EU of its intent to withdraw and outlining plans for a potential new trade arrangement. This would happen by the end of the year.
    Negotiations with the EU would then take place in 2017-18, during which time the economy would be experiencing the second-round effects of the initial shock, including higher inflation, rising unemployment and falling investment. A slump in domestic demand would mean that the greatest hit to the economy would be felt in 2017.
    We assume that a deal involving restrictions on free movement of labour, access to the single market for goods but significant barriers to the market for services would come into force in 2019. This would lead to a fall in the labour force and a step decline in services exports.
    By 2020 we forecast that real GDP would be about 6% below our non-"Brexit" baseline forecast. Unemployment would peak in 2018, reflecting a 380,000-person increase relative to the baseline.
"