EU Referendum

[websaway]

People hold different values towards almost everything. The American values are clearly marked out In Kennedy's statement below. " bare any burden, meet any hardship " as the UK did in two world wars to preserve our sovereignty.
My values are represented in the future of an England not in the evolved European Union which was not the EU we believed we had joined.

"Let every nation know,
whether it wishes us well or
ill, that we shall pay any
price, bear any burden, meet
any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to
assure the survival and the
success of liberty."
John F Kennedy

Someone asked why I say the EU is not democratic and the simple reason is they cannot be held to account ( a bit like FIFA was ) accept through protest and civil unrest, and that's a dangerous road to continue down.

 

[websaway]

Edwin's argument, and he always likes statistics and analysis, reminds me of the argument of science against the existence of god, put up all the scientific evidence of why god does not exist and still if you believe in god it will not change your mind.

 

[bonusmedia]

Edwin's argument, and he always likes statistics and analysis, reminds me of the argument of science against the existence of god, put up all the scientific evidence of why god does not exist and still if you believe in god it will not change your mind.

Yes, that's probably about right. Except of course scientists know you can't prove a negative.

Interesting piece by David Mitchell on Richard Dawkins' opinion: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell

 

[Edwin]

Edwin's argument, and he always likes statistics and analysis, reminds me of the argument of science against the existence of god, put up all the scientific evidence of why god does not exist and still if you believe in god it will not change your mind.

Yes, it does feel a bit like that

Only, I'm neither arrogant nor optimistic enough to expect to persuade anyone who's already firmly made up their mind to change their opinion. I'm no more likely or equipped to do so than a brexiter is to persuade me to change mine!

However, I still hold out a faint hope of gently influencing the "undecideds" reading this thread to at least look at some of the data before making a decision...

 

[Edwin]

Interesting piece by David Mitchell on Richard Dawkins' opinion: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell

He's spot on about it being too big a decision to leave up to the people. Unfortunately that die has now been cast...

And his summary of how he sees his own voting decision almost exactly sums up how I feel! So much so that I'll quote it below...

"Don’t misunderstand me, I know how I’m going to vote – I’m for Remain. I’m unshakable on that. I just don’t know if I’m right. And I also don’t know if the side I’m going to vote for will win. I fear the consequences of its defeat and, to a lesser but still significant extent, I fear the consequences of its victory. I’m not finding any of this much fun." - David Mitchell.

 

[websaway]

Yes, it does feel a bit like that

Only, I'm neither arrogant nor optimistic enough to expect to persuade anyone who's already firmly made up their mind to change their opinion. I'm no more likely or equipped to do so than a brexiter is to persuade me to change mine!

However, I still hold out a faint hope of gently influencing the "undecideds" reading this thread to at least look at some of the data before making a decision...

Undecideds are unlikely to be outers. Outers will have already made up their minds based overwhelmingly on Sovereignty and Immigration, the right to determine the countries future for their children's children. If there are not enough of them now they will not win the referendum. My view is that every outer who knows 10 people who want out should ferry them to the polling station on June 23, I believe that is the only way to win. I believe the inners will have a large proportion of people who can't be bothered to vote and that obviously will benefit the out vote. A man went to the doctor, he had money problems and was suffering from severe depression, the doctor advised him to take an extended holiday in Monaco where there was statistically a much lower degree of depression. That kind of reminds me of the advice economists give to people who have serious concerns about uncontrolled immigration.

 

[signature]

I don’t think economy or immigration is the main issue here, they are both by-products of the direction the EU is going, both sides can paint gloomy picture either way but one things is certain, this country has experience worse than any gloomy predictions that we are hearing at the moment. We don’t need to go back 100s of years to find this out, we have economy crash in the 80s and about 10 years ago and we will still have economy crash if we stay in or out.

Immigration follows where jobs and peaceful life occurs, people have migrated from the UK than people coming in before. London population use to be 8M+ in the 60s, it dropped to a little over 6M in the 80s ( we have less housing, hospitals, transports, schools etc. than now) and now back at 8M+ and it could happen again, if the economy of this country goes down wards and people can’t see hope in the near future, they will migrate to other countries and this will happen either we are in EU or out of EU.

If UK economy become one of the best in the world, immigrants will come regardless of EU or not, the only difference is if we are out we can control the no. of EU and none EU that can work and live in the UK. The danger of this is the world is changing, the world is getting smaller which means at some point in the near future, people won’t have to come over here to work, they can get the job at cheaper rate and stay in their country, but people will still migrate for other reasons.

I think the EU is going for a super state and this is probably be the main concern of the Brexit, its taken average of 3 years to agree on policies, we now have eastern bloc countries joining NATO by becoming member of EU and NATO using this to poke Russia in the eye. The super state will in the future write most of our policies as they will like to have uniformity in all EU countries. This is not necessary a bad thing, the only issue Brexit have with this is because the wealthy nations in EU are the one paying the cost and this is not UK alone.

What we need to stop is using bad words like filth to describe a set of people that have been categorized as immigrants, these people are not filth even if they are illegal immigrants, there is always more than one side to a story, we don’t know their story, we only knows what the media shows us. Most people be it immigrant or native are hardworking people.

We need to move the arguments beyond immigration and economy as this will happen either way.

As for me, I prefer Brexit because I think a super state like EU with NATO becoming bigger could lead to more disruptions in the world, we can all see what is happening with NATO over the last 15 years, but if we vote to stay in, I am okay with that too, this is UK one of the greatest country in the world, it won’t crumble either way.

 

[Toonz]

"Don’t misunderstand me, I know how I’m going to vote – I’m for Remain. I’m unshakable on that. I just don’t know if I’m right. And I also don’t know if the side I’m going to vote for will win. I fear the consequences of its defeat and, to a lesser but still significant extent, I fear the consequences of its victory. I’m not finding any of this much fun." - David Mitchell.

Dawkins elaborated a couple of days ago when asked about it on Reddit:

I am not entitled to an opinion on Brexit since I don't have a degree in economics or history. It is an outrage that ignoramuses like me are being asked to vote on such an important and complicated question which is way above our level of expertise.

Nevertheless I shall vote to stay in Europe, applying the precautionary principle and because the arguments the leaving are mostly emotional, those for staying mostly rational and evidence-based.

But I repeat, it is a disgrace that this important question has been put to plebiscite, apparently as a sop to UKIP-leaning members of the Tory party. I believe in democracy but in parliamentary, representative democracy, not plebiscite democracy.​

 

[websaway]

I think this is what priti patel is saying, the difference between the have's and have not's. The rich don't see a problem with the status quo because they are not being affected as much as the poor who find it difficult to articulate their argument and have for generations relied on their labour representatives who have now had their heads turned by self interest and the potential for being wealthy, and so not being affected by uncontrolled immigration. Indeed it's a net benefit for Labour because every one immigrant represents another labour vote, and when you calculate the death rate among socialist voters they need to replenish their followers.

 

[websaway]

So I am here. Outside we can control our economy. Inside we cannot control our immigration.

 

[Toonz]

Interesting reading the comments about the identity of inners/outers. Reminds me of this graphic which I saw a while ago.

On the point of the haves/have nots, I would aknowledge that it's the less well-off who tend to suffer most of the negative consequences from large scale migration (both economically in wage depression and competition for jobs/housing/public services and also culturally with the poorer pockets of the UK tending to see the largest influxes of migrants).

But it's worth balancing that against how the EU has helped the less well-off with things such as workers' rights (min 28 days paid leave a year, health and safety protection, not losing out if you're ill while on annual leave, etc) and the enormous scale of investment that's regenerated many struggling areas of the UK like my own. There are also other aspects of being in the EU that have offered less obvious benefits to the less well off - things you might not expect, such as stronger consumer rights and more rigorous food standards - these things actually help the poor more than the rich because the rich tend to have more options available to them and can always pay for higher quality food, better legal advice, or whatever it is. The EU has ensured that the safety net is higher than it might otherwise have been.

As I said before, my feeling is that left to our own devices, Britain would not hand this amount of 'power to the people', because we have traditionally been more in favour of trade liberalisation, cutting red tape and bureaucracy and all the other euphemisms that the powerful use to shaft the powerless, but which get packaged up by tabloid press barons as 'a good thing'.

And while we're always tended to be a more conservative Atlanticist nation than our continental counterparts, a Brexit is only likely to increase that. Many people expect Ukip to merge with the Tories to create a very formidable right wing bloc in British politics. As those of us on the left know, Labour already have a near-impossible task returning to No 10 thanks to a growing list of obstacles which favour the Tories:

- constituency boundary changes,
- decision allowing ex-pats to vote,
- changes to household voting registration,
- changes to trade union funding,
- the ever-present right wing press,
- the total and utter loss of Scotland (whether in or out of the UK),
- the greater likelihood of even more unelectable leaders.

(That last one is as a result of them now being chosen by the membership, who tend to be younger/more idealistic and less compromising than is needed to win a general election.)

If Brexit does indeed result in Ukip and the Tories getting together, that will drag British politics firmly to the right and Labour will need to shift with it if it hopes to have a chance in hell of getting back into power. We may find that the Cameron Tory party (or the US Democrats) is what Labour needs to become in order to win. What happens to the less well-off then?

 

[Edwin]

Reminds me of this graphic which I saw a while ago.

That graphic made for fascinating reading - it's almost like a "bingo card" for Leave/Remain. Thanks for posting it.

 

[gimpydog]

Many people expect Ukip to merge with the Tories to create a very formidable right wing bloc in British politics.

That sounds counter-intuitive to me & probably based on the false & out-dated assumption that all 'kippers' are disgruntled Tories.

According to yougov...
18% of kippers live in social housing
17% of kippers earn under £20k
9% of kippers read the Daily Mirror or Daily Record
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

What puzzles me, is why so many Labour MPs back the EU on the basis of workers' rights & social justice. Many of them were in government for thirteen years & did nothing to reverse the Thatcher era union reforms.

They are effectively saying "the EU will do more for workers' rights & social justice than a Labour government will", so what's the point in voting Labour ever again?

 

[Edwin]

They are effectively saying "the EU will do more for workers' rights & social justice than a Labour government will", so what's the point in voting Labour ever again?

Aren't they actually effectively saying "staying in the EU will do more for workers' rights & social justice than leaving the EU would"? After all, those are the only two choices being offered at the referendum - there isn't a "be governed by Labour" option on the ballot...

In other words, they feel that "remain" furthers that particular aim more than "leave" does. If they genuinely believe that's one of the things Labour should aspire to encourage, then it shouldn't matter whether all such change is effected as a direct result of Labour's efforts or not, so long as progress is in the right direction.

 

[websaway]

The in's will be claiming next that the EU gave us inside toilets.

 

[Edwin]

The in's will be claiming next that the EU gave us inside toilets.

The outs will be claiming next that the ins will be claiming next that the EU gave us inside toilets

 

[gimpydog]

Aren't they actually effectively saying "staying in the EU will do more for workers' rights & social justice than leaving the EU would"? .

No, I think they are saying "we don't much like taking tough decisions or making unpopular choices & its easier for us to sit back, do nothing & let Euro-Johnny do all the stuff in the 'too difficult' box that might make us unelectable if we did it ourselves"

 

[Toonz]

That sounds counter-intuitive to me & probably based on the false & out-dated assumption that all 'kippers' are disgruntled Tories.
According to yougov...
18% of kippers live in social housing
17% of kippers earn under £20k
9% of kippers read the Daily Mirror or Daily Record
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

Of course Kippers aren't all disgruntled Tories - I never meant to suggest that. But the majority are likely to be. If we look at your stats the other way round, we can say that 82% of kippers don't live in social housing, 83% of kippers earn over £20k, 91% don't read the Mirror or Record - which supports the point I was making about Ukip and the Tories. After all, you would surely agree that the chance of Ukip and Labour merging is virtually nil.

But of the minority that you identify, you're right in labelling it counterintuitive. As was the massive support for the Tories in the 1980s. How do we explain people voting against their own self interest? Well this is a deeply controversial topic so I will tread as carefully as I can, but in a nutshell, they are comprised of what statisticians sometimes call 'low information voters'. They tend to be a combination of the less well off AND the less educated. It might sound impolite to say it, but this type of voter is more likely to be taken in by the messages of the right (with strong appeals to baser human instincts, prejudice, patriotism, faith, family, flag, all that stuff) than the messages of the liberal left (often derided by the right as the "intelligentsia", metropolitan elite, etc) .

That's not to say that all arguments of the right are wrong or simplistic - I've tried to show that some of them aren't. But in general, I would say that the arguments for staying in the EU tend to be more upper brain, while the arguments for Brexit have a stronger gut component. And the latter type of argument is more well-received by the aforementioned 'low information voter' than the more educated and liberal one. This is a very delicate subject due to the huge social taboo of talking about differences in people's intelligence. What usually happens is someone comes along with a "You think you're better than everyone else" and the argument gets derailed. As far as I can see, there are intelligent arguments to be made on both sides for staying in and leaving - but it's easier to pander to ignorance on the Brexit side than on the Remain side.

What puzzles me, is why so many Labour MPs back the EU on the basis of workers' rights & social justice. Many of them were in government for thirteen years & did nothing to reverse the Thatcher era union reforms.

They are effectively saying "the EU will do more for workers' rights & social justice than a Labour government will", so what's the point in voting Labour ever again?

Labour didn't reverse the Thatcher era union reforms probably because they desperately needed to shed the widely-held and toxic perception that they were still in hoc to the unions who would hold the country to ransom. But that's one very specific issue. I'm not here to defend New Labour's record in government but for all their faults there is a great deal of progressive reform that they did achieve in their 13 years such as extra spending on public services in particular health and education, the Minimum Wage, etc. Ultimately though this isn't about Labour MPs, it's about Labour voters, or at least the working class people who used to vote for them.

 

[Edwin]

In the US, there's much less tiptoeing around the subject involved - Trump flat out said "I love the low educated". His core demographic supports that... See for example
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/who...poorly_educated_and_they_love_him_right_back/

 

[Toonz]

In the US, there's much less tiptoeing around the subject involved - Trump flat out said "I love the low educated". His core demographic supports that... See for example
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/who...poorly_educated_and_they_love_him_right_back/

When they hear that, do you think they all assume he's talking about someone else?

It's a classic case of pandering though, as well as a reflection of a growing mood of anti-intellectualism creeping through the West. I remember Palin wearing her ignorance as a badge of honour and being rewarded by her base for it. Not that I think Trump is ignorant. He's a very shrewd guy, cynically playing them, chucking red meat at the primitives. If he becomes President, I think many of them will be in for some disappointment.

That chart is quite revealing. I must admit I'm struggling to get my head around populism being the polar opposite of libertarianism. I'd have thought it should be authoritarianism in the bottom quadrant.