EU Referendum

[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.

 

[AlistairM]

After watching "You've Been Trumped" a few years ago, I don't really like him too much.

 

[martin-s]

If you're in favour of the "brexit" scenario:
1) Who do you realistically see negotiating Britain's terms with the EU and the rest of the world post-brexit?
2) What gives you the confidence to think the negotiations will go in the direction you'd like them to (I assume here that you have your own mental image of the shape of a future Britain post-brexit since you're voting "leave")?
3) What role, if any, would Vote Leave have in the negotiations and in the shaping of Britain's future relationships? What about LeaveEU?

1) Whoever does it at the moment
2) Our world will look much like it does now. All the scare stories forgotten. Most countries in the world will just quietly accept that they're working with a new reality and get on with it, in their own interest.
3) Minimal as a group, I'd imagine, but obviously potentially a few names may be involved.

None of this matters to me, it's not urgent and will all work itself out in the wash.

 

[martin-s]

Edwin, for someone who is such a passionate advocate of Remain, why are you so positive about the EU? It can't all be about the risk of change surely?

 

[websaway]

Edwin, for someone who is such a passionate advocate of Remain, why are you so positive about the EU? It can't all be about the risk of change surely?

The only way immigration affects Cambridge is through intellectual immigrants paying bundles of cash to be educated.

 

[Edwin]

Edwin, for someone who is such a passionate advocate of Remain, why are you so positive about the EU? It can't all be about the risk of change surely?

I've been fortunate enough never to have had anything much to complain about, EU-wise. So I've no interest in pursuing an "unknown unknown" when what we have now doesn't appear to me to be particularly broken, and indeed seems to offer a number of easy to understand benefits (I posted a link to 116 "remain" plus points a few posts back.)

Also, as has already been noted, I do put stock in facts and figures, stats and data, and the vast majority of such material seems to point towards "remain" as the better option (I'm guessing I must have read several hundred articles on the subject over the last six months or so) whereas "leave" arguments appeal more to emotion, with relatively little supporting evidence.

Is the EU perfect? No, far from it. But I don't buy into the "leave" campaign's vague suggestions of a "better tomorrow" in growing isolation. That feels like it would be a huge step backwards in this ever more global world!

But that's just me. Everyone's mileage can and will vary. At the end of the day, all I've done is contribute a bunch of links and a few arguments to perhaps guide those who have yet to make up their minds towards information they can use to help reach a decision. Everyone has their own experiences and their own background to bring to the table, and that will shape their position just as surely as mine has been shaped by my own.

The worst thing would be to take no position at all. If you take the time to read up on the subject, then you'll be ready to formulate a view. It may not agree with mine, but at least you'll be participating in this massive and rather scary experiment that has been thrust upon us all.

 

[martin-s]

Scary experiment? You can't be serious? I really have no idea what you find so frightening. Are you a worrier in general?

I don't agree that leaving the EU is isolationist - there are just better ways to integrate rather than working towards becoming an EU state.

 

[spiderspider]

For the 'innies' if you're so passionately in, would you move to an 'in' country, if the UK votes out?

Take it on the chin?

Spend the rest of your life moaning that anything and everything was down to us leaving the EU?

 

[websaway]

Many attempts have been made to have a united states of Europe. To my knowledge it's always been attempted by force. This time it's economics, we have you where we want you and if you leave you will be ruined economically. The Euro not the bullet. It's as bad as telling jihadis they will get all the virgins in heaven. Psychological power not democracy.

 

[Toonz]

Brexit a scary experiment? Of course it's bloody scary!

Let's focus on endorsements alone for a second.

Remain has an extremely long list of world respected organisations and allies advising that we stay.
Brexit has a list but it's extremely threadbare and large chunks of it are quite embarrassing.

In addition, Brexit seems to have become a honeypot for the Tory Party's free-market extremists - people like John Whittingdale, Chris Grayling, Michael Gove, IDS, etc. That scares me. When I hear their newly-found passion for the NHS and their sudden fear of a big trade agreement that will open up markets, one which they were loudly supporting just months ago, it makes me nervous that they're acting out of character - with emphasis on the word 'acting'.

And that's to say nothing of Farage's bunch of crusty colonels, bigots and climate-change denying fruitcakes, all of whom we'd expect to support Brexit, but still with a higher than usual ratio of oddballs and racists than other parties.

While I always attempt to judge issues on their merit and would never let endorsements alone be the overriding factor, I can't help but feel more swayed by a side favoured by Prof Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, President Obama and Britain's allies than a side favoured by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Nick Griffin and Britain's enemies. But do I realise that that's subjective and perhaps if you're a fan of Ian Botham, Katie Hopkins, Mike Read and the Daily Express then that will do it for you.

Yes I know - we can all be selective about this and there are plenty in Remain with whom I disagree or dislike. It's just that the way the two teams stack up, it so happens that almost all the people I admire are in for Remain and almost all the people I dislike are for Brexit. And that alone, even before we get onto the arguments themselves, is scary!

 

[Toonz]

For the 'innies' if you're so passionately in, would you move to an 'in' country, if the UK votes out?

I'm a tentative 'inner' and if the UK votes out, I wouldn't consider moving to an EU country unless things got really bad here.

Spend the rest of your life moaning that anything and everything was down to us leaving the EU?

Isn't that what Brexiteers have been doing about us being in the EU for the past 40 years?

 

[martin-s]

Let's focus on endorsements alone for a second.

Remain has an extremely long list of world respected organisations and allies advising that we stay.

All commentators have their own agenda - some of them just a bit of publicity no doubt. It's hardly a surprise that big business is for remain, they want the cheap staff that immigration brings.

People in power don't like rocking the boat for other people in power. You have to wonder how many favours have been pulled in to get these announcements.

As other people have said, if leaving was so risky and so scary (it isn't), then it would have been downright dangerous for Cameron to have approved the vote and then pretended he wasn't ruling out campaigning for exit himself.

 

[Toonz]

All commentators have their own agenda - some of them just a bit of publicity no doubt.

This seems a bit contradictory though because if a commentator was motivated by their need for publicity, then surely they'd get more of it by picking Brexit, the maverick option? Also, while it's always worth keeping in mind the agenda and groupthink of establishment bodies, I think it's possible to go too far in thinking that their judgments and conclusions are just based on that agenda. In many cases, their reasoning is spelled out.

It's hardly a surprise that big business is for remain, they want the cheap staff that immigration brings.

Most big business at that level is more concerned with outsourcing than immigration because the former represents cheaper labour. But of the firms concerned with immigration and cheap UK-based staff, I should think most of them will understand that if we Brexit, then in order to continue to trade with the EU, we will still need to agree to the free movement of people, so it's going to happen one way or another. (I don't think any big business is seriously contemplating the British economy coming to some longterm WTO arrangement.)

People in power don't like rocking the boat for other people in power. You have to wonder how many favours have been pulled in to get these announcements.

Yes, I must admit there is a strong sense of that. But again, it's possible to take that explanation too far.

As other people have said, if leaving was so risky and so scary (it isn't), then it would have been downright dangerous for Cameron to have approved the vote and then pretended he wasn't ruling out campaigning for exit himself.

I think that says more about the flip-flopping Cameron and his lack of belief and integrity. It certainly makes a mockery of his WWIII Brexit scenario and is definitely an own goal for the Remain side.

 

[websaway]

Brexit a scary experiment? Of course it's bloody scary!

Let's focus on endorsements alone for a second.

Remain has an extremely long list of world respected organisations and allies advising that we stay.
Brexit has a list but it's extremely threadbare and large chunks of it are quite embarrassing.

In addition, Brexit seems to have become a honeypot for the Tory Party's free-market extremists - people like John Whittingdale, Chris Grayling, Michael Gove, IDS, etc. That scares me. When I hear their newly-found passion for the NHS and their sudden fear of a big trade agreement that will open up markets, one which they were loudly supporting just months ago, it makes me nervous that they're acting out of character - with emphasis on the word 'acting'.

And that's to say nothing of Farage's bunch of crusty colonels, bigots and climate-change denying fruitcakes, all of whom we'd expect to support Brexit, but still with a higher than usual ratio of oddballs and racists than other parties.

While I always attempt to judge issues on their merit and would never let endorsements alone be the overriding factor, I can't help but feel more swayed by a side favoured by Prof Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, President Obama and Britain's allies than a side favoured by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Nick Griffin and Britain's enemies. But do I realise that that's subjective and perhaps if you're a fan of Ian Botham, Katie Hopkins, Mike Read and the Daily Express then that will do it for you.

Yes I know - we can all be selective about this and there are plenty in Remain with whom I disagree or dislike. It's just that the way the two teams stack up, it so happens that almost all the people I admire are in for Remain and almost all the people I dislike are for Brexit. And that alone, even before we get onto the arguments themselves, is scary!

 

[websaway]

So you respect tony blair who wanted to join the Euro but not Norman Tebbit and Nigel Lawson. Yes you are being very selective about who you see as outers and inners.

 

[Toonz]

So you respect tony blair who wanted to join the Euro but not Norman Tebbit and Nigel Lawson. Yes you are being very selective about who you see as outers and inners.

Well I already acknowledged in my post that I was being selective and was talking about how the two sides stacked up at a larger scale.

Re Blair and the Euro - he only wanted Britain to join if all the economic conditions were in place, as he repeatedly said at the time. And as you know, the conditions weren't in place. Clegg would be a better example than Blair if you want to go down that route.

 

[websaway]

How can we trust The Prime minister. Two weeks ago in the London Mayor elections he accused Corbyn of putting up a terrorist sympathiser as his candidate. Yesterday he was sharing a platform with the very same person. Self interest to a sickening level.