EU Referendum

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

It's odd to see people talking about the Labour party as if they still factor into anything. Because of the awful voting system in the UK now they have no chance of ever winning an election again as long as SNP continues to exist and take all the seats in Scotland. Without Scotland they can never gather enough votes to be in power again. This is not my political opinion just an observation. I don't think any party politics make a difference to this vote though.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

One possible scenario is that Britain leaves and the much predicted economic shock happens. That would pretty much vapourise support for UKIP since it would show that the "Remain" warnings had been true all along. But whether that would boost the Tories more than other parties or hurt them is hard to say.

One thing's for sure: since Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are all on the same side for pretty much the first time in living memory, none of the three main parties can make political capital out of whatever result we end up with.

The nearest might be a grumble aimed at David Cameron that he gave us a referendum at all, but I don't see an argument suggesting that it would have been better not to give people a vote at all getting very far (even though it may well turn out to be true)

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

It's odd to see people talking about the Labour party as if they still factor into anything. Because of the awful voting system in the UK now they have no chance of ever winning an election again as long as SNP continues to exist and take all the seats in Scotland. Without Scotland they can never gather enough votes to be in power again. This is not my political opinion just an observation. I don't think any party politics make a difference to this vote though.

They still have a role to play as "spoiler" if there's only a narrow majority - witness the stream of Commons defeats and U-turns recently.

But you're spot on: as a party of government, Labour is spent.

 

[Toonz]

One possible scenario is that Britain leaves and the much predicted economic shock happens. That would pretty much vapourise support for UKIP since it would show that the "Remain" warnings had been true all along. But whether that would boost the Tories more than other parties or hurt them is hard to say.

If UKIP are vaporised, their voters will likely turn to the Tories which is where most of them originated. Labour remain deeply untrusted on the economy so we'd probably be looking at a boost to the moderate wing of the Tory party.

One thing's for sure: since Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are all on the same side for pretty much the first time in living memory, none of the three main parties can make political capital out of whatever result we end up with.

Unless there's a commanding win for Remain, I think Cameron is toast after the referendum and there will be a power shift to the eurosceptic Tories, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Boris, Govey, etc. In a sense they could be viewed as if they're a new party disconnected from the Cameron-Osborne era so they'd benefit from a honeymoon period.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Unless there's a commanding win for Remain, I think Cameron is toast after the referendum and there will be a power shift to the eurosceptic Tories, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Boris, Govey, etc. In a sense they could be viewed as if they're a new party disconnected from the Cameron-Osborne era so they'd benefit from a honeymoon period.

I agree - a very narrow win or a loss and Cameron will be gone in fairly short order - which probably means Boris as PM. If, on the other hand, there's a strong Remain win, then I expect Cameron will (quite rightly) purge the cabinet and top ranks of those who have been such thorns in his side the last few months, and enjoy another 3 years before the fight to succeed him begins in earnest.

 

[spiderspider]

(They only have 1 MP so they can't influence the negotiation process one way or another.)

What utter tosh!

How many MEPs do they have?

Do you think they didn't influence any when they had zero MPs?

They are the main reason we have this referendum. It wouldn't have happened without them. If we had proportional representation, they would be a big party in parliament.

But then that's not what the Guardian reports, so you probably didn't know

 

[Brassneck]

I agree - a very narrow win or a loss and Cameron will be gone in fairly short order - which probably means Boris as PM. If, on the other hand, there's a strong Remain win, then I expect Cameron will (quite rightly) purge the cabinet and top ranks of those who have been such thorns in his side the last few months, and enjoy another 3 years before the fight to succeed him begins in earnest.

Out of interest, what would be considered to be a commanding win - 52 v 48, 55 v 45, 60 v 40 or better?

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

What utter tosh!

How many MEPs do they have?

Do you think they didn't influence any when they had zero MPs?

They are the main reason we have this referendum. It wouldn't have happened without them. If we had proportional representation, they would be a big party in parliament.

But then that's not what the Guardian reports, so you probably didn't know

I know all about their 20-odd MEPs.

But I was talking about a "Leave" situation. In that case, the UK government will need to enact laws to replicate the EU ones they want to "keep" (either unchanged or modified) that they'll lose by leaving the EU. That's predominantly a matter for our national parliament, not the EU parliament. And nationally UKIP have a single MP.

And I already pointed out that UKIP will go down in history as a huge success if the result is a "Leave" - that's fully reflective of their influence.

Here's a bit more about the MEP situation (in the event of a "Leave" vote)

According to the article, if the U.K. decides to leave the Union it would need to notify other EU member countries in the European Council and then negotiate an agreement with them on the terms of its withdrawal.

During the negotiation phase, British officials would in principle continue to fully exercise their rights within the EU institutions. But they would lose their political champions in the EU, as neither the British prime minister nor British officials in the Council would be allowed to participate in deliberations and decisions affecting their country.

(The above is talking about the Article 50 mechanism for leaving the EU, quoted from:
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexodus-from-brussels-looms-for-british-eu-officials-brexit-leave/ - the bold is my highlight)

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Out of interest, what would be considered to be a commanding win - 52 v 48, 55 v 45, 60 v 40 or better?

I'd say 55 v 45 is already (politically) commanding, since that will probably work out to several million more votes on one side compared to the other (subject to turnout being reasonably high - there hasn't been a referendum specifically like this one before, so who knows what turnout will be like).

 

[newguy]

-

 

[websaway]

Cameron said that if we leave the EU France and other countries will punish us. So what does he think of the morals of this mafiosa type organisation.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Cameron said that if we leave the EU France and other countries will punish us. So what does he think of the morals of this mafiosa type organisation.

Are his thoughts on their morals remotely relevant? Surely it's the consequences of their actions that are going to hurt the UK, regardless of whether they have good/bad reasons for them... Even if they had the worst reasons for acting you could possibly dream up, the effects of their actions will be just as harmful as if they did it out of love and kindness.

It is perfectly understandable that the rest of the EU will seek to "punish" the UK for leaving so as to slam the door shut on other countries going down the same path. And with so many EU-related things requiring a consensus of all EU countries, it only takes one out of the remainder to give the UK a bloody nose for having "messed" with the harmony of the EU.

And that has real, tangible consequences for the UK economy, freedom of movement, job prospects etc.

(It's this same unanimity that has destroyed the Greek economy because the EU had to keep going round and round and round until the austerity measures were draconian enough to get the agreement of EVERY single country.)

Not to mention that as soon as the UK invokes Article 50, they're effectively going to be "sent out of the room" on negotiations that affect other EU countries, since the EU won't allow a leaving member to affect laws that they won't be subject to by virtue of having declared their intent to leave.

Is any of the above nice? No.

Is any of the above "fair"? Arguably not.

But it's the reality we live in, and to deny that reality is the equivalent of sticking ones hands over one ears and going "la-la-la" until the monster goes away.

 

[websaway]

Are his thoughts on their morals remotely relevant? Surely it's the consequences of their actions that are going to hurt the UK, regardless of whether they have good/bad reasons for them... Even if they had the worst reasons for acting you could possibly dream up, the effects of their actions will be just as harmful as if they did it out of love and kindness.

It is perfectly understandable that the rest of the EU will seek to "punish" the UK for leaving so as to slam the door shut on other countries going down the same path. And with so many EU-related things requiring a consensus of all EU countries, it only takes one out of the remainder to give the UK a bloody nose for having "messed" with the harmony of the EU.

And that has real, tangible consequences for the UK economy, freedom of movement, job prospects etc.

(It's this same unanimity that has destroyed the Greek economy because the EU had to keep going round and round and round until the austerity measures were draconian enough to get the agreement of EVERY single country.)

Not to mention that as soon as the UK invokes Article 50, they're effectively going to be "sent out of the room" on negotiations that affect other EU countries, since the EU won't allow a leaving member to affect laws that they won't be subject to by virtue of having declared their intent to leave.

Is any of the above nice? No.

Is any of the above "fair"? Arguably not.

But it's the reality we live in, and to deny that reality is the equivalent of sticking ones hands over one ears and going "la-la-la" until the monster goes away.

So you agree then, once in it's a kind of mafiosa type of organisation.

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

I thought the UK didn't negotiate demands in a blackmail/kidnap situation? Isn't claiming that people should choose something because otherwise they'll be 'punished' the opposite?

 

[websaway]

Heard Tim Roach GMB trade unionist this morning complaining about low wages and zero hours contracts in the UK. He doesn't think it's free movement that's to blame and advises his members to vote to stay in a reformed EU. I wonder if he's read the ballot paper. There is no box to tick for a reformed EU.

 

[disruptive]

Heard Tim Roach GMB trade unionist this morning complaining about low wages and zero hours contracts in the UK. He doesn't think it's free movement that's to blame and advises his members to vote to stay in a reformed EU. I wonder if he's read the ballot paper. There is no box to tick for a reformed EU.

Sadly this is the view of many a Union Man, that I come across - they don't seem to realise that between the flood of low wage workers and automation their voters are doomed unless they act. The love of the EU from the left is beyond comprehension.

I don't think anyone who has a net worth less than around £3M and who can insulate themselves what is happening should be voting to stay in.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

So you agree then, once in it's a kind of mafiosa type of organisation.

No, not particularly. It's a strange beast because of the constant need for consensus building, which pretty much guarantees everyone will be somewhat disappointed most of the time. But that's completely different from what you're suggesting...

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

I thought the UK didn't negotiate demands in a blackmail/kidnap situation? Isn't claiming that people should choose something because otherwise they'll be 'punished' the opposite?

The thing is, the Leave camp paint a scenario that includes the rosiest of all possible outcomes at every turn. Thousands of years of human history suggest that having everything go exactly the UK's way is as unlikely as flipping a dozen heads in a row when tossing a coin.

Countries are nasty, self-centred, self-interested. So many elements of the Leave scenario involve other countries behaving contrary to their own best interests for reasons that are never forthcoming...

It's like being asked to tiptoe blindfold through a minefield to reach a pot of gold. The gold is real, but the mines are just as real. And Leave say "trust us, when the time comes, we're sure you'll miss the mines... Oh, and we're not the ones who will have to choose the footing since we're only voting to force you to cross the minefield, but it's your responsibility not to get us blown up."

 

[websaway]

I thought the UK didn't negotiate demands in a blackmail/kidnap situation? Isn't claiming that people should choose something because otherwise they'll be 'punished' the opposite?

And what happens if we try to veto Turkey j

The thing is, the Leave camp paint a scenario that includes the rosiest of all possible outcomes at every turn. Thousands of years of human history suggest that having everything go exactly the UK's way is as unlikely as flipping a dozen heads in a row when tossing a coin.

Countries are nasty, self-centred, self-interested. So many elements of the Leave scenario involve other countries behaving contrary to their own best interests for reasons that are never forthcoming...

It's like being asked to tiptoe blindfold through a minefield to reach a pot of gold. The gold is real, but the mines are just as real. And Leave say "trust us, when the time comes, we're sure you'll miss the mines... Oh, and we're not the ones who will have to choose the footing since we're only voting to force you to cross the minefield, but it's your responsibility not to get us blown up."

Miss the mines that you've conveniently invented. That stands a great chance.
You really are not doing your case a great deal of good. You are saying that we should continue to surrender our freedom and sovereignty through fear of what other countries will do to us. Just as well Churchill didn't have your outlook.

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

Wow did you really just use that analogy Edwin? You say the gold is real (always been there) but now we have to tiptoe through a minefield (not placed by us) to get to it - so better not try. Geez.