EU Referendum / BREXIT

[Kythia]

Trading in RBS and Barclays was briefly suspended this morning to try to prevent a total collapse. Ouch.

[Cycle]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Khoraz.

[hamish1024]

OK, I do respect that someone has actually posted some pro-Leave defenses. And I do acknowledge that bickering after the fact is probably not going to help now. But I still have to take issue with some of the things being said there, sorry. Put it down to me being a terrible person, if you like.

Before we can help anyone, surely we need to be in a state where all the people already here are okay? Hence my desire to curb the numbers.

So at some point in the future, you envisage Britain being able to announce "Yup, literally everyone on this island is doing okay! Let's go help some foreigners now!"? The real reason that not everyone is okay is nothing to do with immigration, it's to do with inequality in our economic model and underinvestment in social welfare. Both of which will get worse now. (Please consider that Victorian Britain didn't need *any* immigrants around to make life a shitty living hell for the white working class).

I can't remember where I read it, but the UK was NATO's largest contributer - that isn't right when we're struggling with domestic issues, why on earth are we giving so much money away?

Well, obviously not, the USA will be far and away the biggest NATO contributor, I'm guessing the UK and France will be second and third due to their UN security council seats. I'd never expected to see a Leave argument which classed "having an army" as "giving money away". I'm actually with you on the scope to reduce the UK's military budget, with one caveat - this has no place in an anti EU argument as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

I'm not a racist, old or uneducated. The very fact that those statistics are being shoved out is insulting because it has no baring on the result

Not everything that you don't like the tone of should be taken as a personal insult. Those statistics do have a bearing on *understanding* the result. Especially in the absence of coherent arguments on what leaving the EU will actually achieve, or how it will address the problems that the Leave group have cited (i.e. immigration. Leaving the EU will not stop, or even help to stop, immigration. I can't stress that enough).   

The fact that the EU has been very secretive doesn't sit well with me.

*Is* it secretive though? I completely agree that most people don't know about its inner workings, myself included, but I always put that down to it simply being as boring as fuck. No conspiracy there, surely?

The EU is being used as a scapegoat for problems that are simply nothing to do with it.

[Suiko]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Khoraz.

No problem~

OK, I do respect that someone has actually posted some pro-Leave defenses. And I do acknowledge that bickering after the fact is probably not going to help now. But I still have to take issue with some of the things being said there, sorry. Put it down to me being a terrible person, if you like.

So at some point in the future, you envisage Britain being able to announce "Yup, literally everyone on this island is doing okay! Let's go help some foreigners now!"? The real reason that not everyone is okay is nothing to do with immigration, it's to do with inequality in our economic model and underinvestment in social welfare. Both of which will get worse now. (Please consider that Victorian Britain didn't need *any* immigrants around to make life a shitty living hell for the white working class).

Well, obviously not, the USA will be far and away the biggest NATO contributor, I'm guessing the UK and France will be second and third due to their UN security council seats. I'd never expected to see a Leave argument which classed "having an army" as "giving money away". I'm actually with you on the scope to reduce the UK's military budget, with one caveat - this has no place in an anti EU argument as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Not everything that you don't like the tone of should be taken as a personal insult. Those statistics do have a bearing on *understanding* the result. Especially in the absence of coherent arguments on what leaving the EU will actually achieve, or how it will address the problems that the Leave group have cited (i.e. immigration. Leaving the EU will not stop, or even help to stop, immigration. I can't stress that enough).   

*Is* it secretive though? I completely agree that most people don't know about its inner workings, myself included, but I always put that down to it simply being as boring as fuck. No conspiracy there, surely?

The EU is being used as a scapegoat for problems that are simply nothing to do with it.

I don't know how to break up quotes so I'll do my best here.

• No I don't expect a sudden idealised version of Britain to come out of this - it just feels like common sense to prioritise what problems we already have before welcoming in more. I know that the class system is utter BS and has nothing to do with immigration,  but I don't think you can say that the ever-increasing population has nothing to do with the quality of life going down either. And again, I know that isn't down to immigration, but it plays a role for sure.
• Okay, second-highest, sorry. Somehow I forgot about America. Still, I think the fact that you never expected a Leaver to think we're putting too much money into the army is an example of the sweeping generalisation going on. It has got to do with Europe because of how much money/troops we've been pumping into it in the form of aid. I'm not saying that it's entirely the EU, but like I said above - it plays a massive role in things from what I've seen.
• I haven't taken everything as a personal insult. There's just been some... unpleasant tones in this thread that weren't so great, but I'm pretty happy to debate and stuff. Hence this reply. I think leaving the EU will impact on immigration; if you think about free-movement, combined with the fact that countries like Turkey, Syria, and others are top candidates for joining the EU... that leaves the door open for a lot more people to move around, and not all of them would be refugees. I like the idea of being able to draw our own line on things, rather than someone else drawing it for us.
• It is pretty damn secretive. I've certainly struggled to find much information from Brussels about the meetings that go on - I don't think it's a conspiracy, there's just a lack of transparency that I have a problem with. If you're governing 28 countries then they need to be able to hear what you're talking about
• The EU has been making its own bed for a long time... though I blame Merkel for that. She's out of touch and I believe that opinion polls in Germany have shown her going out of favour. It's not a scapegoat - it's a big contributor to a lot of issues, at least that's how I see it.

Phew. Think that's everything?

[Kythia]

No problem~
I don't know how to break up quotes so I'll do my best here.

When you click quote you get the header across the top, this one looks like:

Code Select Expand

[quote author=Khoraz link=topic=250347.msg12451043#msg12451043 date=1467041726]

for example.  That's the start of each code block.  Then use:

Code Select Expand

[/quote]

at the end.  Putting them together:

Code Select Expand

[quote author=Khoraz link=topic=250347.msg12451043#msg12451043 date=1467041726]
Blah blah blah
[/quote]

looks like

Blah blah blah

Anyway, just quickly.

Okay, second-highest, sorry. Somehow I forgot about America. Still, I think the fact that you never expected a Leaver to think we're putting too much money into the army is an example of the sweeping generalisation going on. It has got to do with Europe because of how much money/troops we've been pumping into it in the form of aid. I'm not saying that it's entirely the EU, but like I said above - it plays a massive role in things from what I've seen.

No.  NATO is nothing to do with the EU.  We're still in NATO (well, we're still in the EU but you get what I mean).  Our commitments to NATO have not changed in any way.  Hamish is right, this is utterly unrelated.  Could I ask what you've seen?  Do you have any links or sources or facts or anything?

...fact that countries like Turkey, Syria, and others are top candidates for joining the EU...

No, again this is totally untrue.  Turkey applied in 1987 and still hasn't, hardly a top priority.  Syria has never applied, never expressed an interest, never been invited, never...never anything.  It may be that this is the first time that has even been suggested.  Again, sources?

It is pretty damn secretive. I've certainly struggled to find much information from Brussels about the meetings that go on - I don't think it's a conspiracy, there's just a lack of transparency that I have a problem with. If you're governing 28 countries then they need to be able to hear what you're talking about

Have you tried their website?  That's where I get mine from.  As a general rule, when looking for information about an organisation their website is often the first place I look.  Let me know what you're having problems locating and I'll link it for you.

I'm kinda with Hamish on the "is this worth it" line of arguing about this post facto but on the other hand I don't see any benefit to not correcting misconceptions.  After going to and fro for a bit...well, see above.

[Suiko]

My sources tend to be seeing it on the news.

In the build up to the referendum there was a programme on the BBC that tried to be an impartial advice-giver; that's one of the main things that I remember. There was Turkey, Syria and 3 other countries that have applied for membership, and Turkey by itself has been in the news loads about its desire to join the EU, and Cameron has been saying for ages that he supports said membership. Granted that means little now, but still.

With regard to NATO it is relevant because the EU has a target amount of funding to put into it - the UK has consistently met this obligation (which I think is too much) whereas many other EU states have not. Why is that okay? It doesn't seem fair to me that ohrr countries are expected to take up the slack. Not to say that I think NATO is great, but there's very uneven spending going on.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193
The source goes on and on about other things, but yeah. Not good.

Also this might be a bit paranoid of me, but I never go to the website of whatever it is I'm researching - there's going to be obvious bias and it makes it difficult to find anything impartial. But that's true with everything.



I don't know if it's worth it either - like I've said before people really dig their heels in and it takes a lot to change ge their minds. I think I'm right and you think you're right - that's how debates work. ^^;

[Trigon]

I think we might just straight up disagree here, Louise.  If I see someone wearing a normal t-shirt but sat with thirty people in Newcastle tops at a bar frequented by Newcastle fans and saying things like "Boy, I sure hope Newcastle win today" then I'm going to assume that they are a Newcastle fan.  I'll believe them if they say otherwise, but I don't think my assumption was unwarranted.

Similarly, if I see someone of unknown racistness joining a group characterised by racism at a time when they have the opportunity to express that racism and saying things like "Boy, I sure hope these racists win" then I'm going to assume they're a bigot.  Again, believe them if they're not but not an unfair thing to think. 

Being associated with the Brexit campaign massively raises the a priori chances you are a bigot.  You can't reasonably object to people noticing that fact and raising it.

I agree with this!

It is particularly telling that racism is coming out in the open following the referendum. To give another example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html

Not to mention the reaction of Trump and his elk back in the States.

I'll have to say, recent events have led me to rethink Britain's relationship with the EU,  that there was just more to staying with the EU than just economics, even though I'm not in Europe!

[Suiko]

All the racist stuff going on does need to be stopped. I'm thinking that once the politics settle down those assholes will be put in check. No good.

[Stan']

And of course, the whole 'Turkey takes in all these refugees' deal was no doubt done in a way for Turkey to get on good terms with the EU, as well as the Schengen visa-free deal on the horizon.  This sounds like them wanting to join the EU to me.

This debate is starting to go the way of the discussions on people's facebook.  I honestly think this thread is starting to get dangerously close to personal attacks and groundless assumptions.

[Suiko]

It's just a hot topic of discussion. Impossible not to get a bit worked up over it, you know?

[Stan']

It is, but the way I'm reading this thread, those who are defending the 'leave' result are being implied to be racist bigots unless we actually come out and say we're not.

[Neroon]

I will clearly state that I know many people who voted leave and not one of them is a racist.  Voting leave did not make someone a racist but then pointing out that racists are trying to use the vote for their own ends.  I never make assumptions about someone's character for the company they keep but instead I look at their actions or inactions.  When people are persecuted, it is not  enough to stand by wringing one's hands, one must stand up for what is right.  Those non-racists I know who voted for Brexit did that and I respect them for it.  They were wrong, but I respect that they acted with their consciences.  The reasons they made the wrong choice is because they were misinformed.

The truly sad thing about the vote, though, is the way that the UK population were lied to and by both sides. However, the fact remains that the remain side was fundamentally more honest than the leave side.  We are already starting to see the justified warnings of the remain side coming true and the empty promises of the leave side being broken. 

Why did people vote for Brexit?  Simple, Project Lie was more convincing then Project Fear. 

The trouble is, Project Lie is still at it.  The act of parliament that set up the referendum stated that the referendum was non-binding.  Yet it is repeated over and over that the Prime Minister, either Cameron now or whoever emerges as leader after a Tory leadership battle, will have to invoke Article 50 of the EU referendum.  Yet this too is a lie.  Firstly the only valid conclusion one can take from last week's vote is that the UK population is split on Europe.  Britain may have spoken but pretty much what it said was "er...".  Secondly, the wording of the Brexit referendum's act was very specific and did not make any reference to the decision of the referendum having to be taken by parliament.  For a referendum to be binding it has to be specifically stated in that referendum's associated act that the referendum result must be followed.  Without that, the only way Britain can legally leave the EU is if the House of Commons passes an act to leave the EU since the preamble to Article 50 states,  “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”  And that's ignoring the fact that sections 29 and 57(2) of the 1998 Scotland Act grants the Sottish parliament a veto.

Now an obscure part of the Maastricht Treaty could allow the Brexiteers to get round this, as it does allow for members having referenda to leave the EU. However, it states that a referendum regarding departure from the EU would require a 75% turnout and a 65% mandate.  The referendum we just had neither meets the criteria in terms of turn out nor does its result.  It might be that the pro-Brexit group want to ignore this as "another case where Europe is telling us what to do" but I suspect the reasons are less honourable. They are hoping that inertia will carry people through and that we will sleepwalk away from the EU.

It is time for Boris, Gove and Farrage to stop lying us their lies and the only way to ensure this is to make sure the truth is known.

[Polymorph]

I voted LEAVE. I would vote that way again without a shadow of doubt if need be.

That said, Kythia I believe to be perfectly correct that the EU's own website is an excellent source of easily accessible information. It took me less than 30 seconds to source and copy and paste this.

The countries currently negotiating or preparing for negotiations

Turkey was recognised as a candidate country at the December 1999 Helsinki European Council. The EU launched accession negotiations with Turkey at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 3 October 2005.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia received the status of candidate country by the European Council in December 2005. In October 2009, the Commission further recommended launching negotiations with the country. This has, however, not yet been agreed by the Council.

Montenegro applied in 2008 and was granted candidate country status at the December 2010 European Council. Negotiations will however be launched only upon satisfactory compliance with a set of policy conditions.

Albania applied for EU Membership in 2009 and was granted candidate country status at the June 2014 European Council.

Iceland applied on 16 July 2009. The European Council granted Iceland candidate status in June 2010 and negotiations were formerly opened in July 2010. In mid-2013, the new government decided to put negotiations on hold.

Serbia applied in 2009 and was granted candidate country status at the May 2012 European Council.

[Polymorph]

Turkey quite frankly has in the 11 years since it applied failed completely to make headway on reaching the criteria for joining. There was never any chance of Turkey joining in the foreseeable future. Politicians certainly said they hoped Turkey might one day join, but the prospect was more wishful thinking than realistic.

[Polymorph]

And that's ignoring the fact that sections 29 and 57(2) of the 1998 Scotland Act grants the Sottish parliament a veto.

The problem with the argument, at least as I see it, is the so-called proviso. The Sewel convention has now been enacted in section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998. What it says in context is:


(7)     This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.

(8)     But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

You remember that proviso I mentioned? The Westminster Parliament retained a residual right to legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament in non-normal circumstances.

And if a decision in a UK-wide referendum to depart from the European Union is not a non-normal circumstance I don’t know what is.

[Neroon]

And you're ignoring the fact that the referendum is not legally binding.

It was a lie to say that this referendum would decide if we would stay in or leave.  It is a lie to say that it shows that the majority of Britain wants to leave- it has not been demonstrated.  It is a lie to say that the result of this referendum is equivalent to an act of parliament.

You are right however to say that should parliament vote to leave the EU, Holyrood could do nothing about it.  But the referendum result is not an act of parliament.  The act of parliament relating to the referendum specifically excludes mention of the referendum result being legally binding, which it would need for it to force Brexit.  Therefore Holyrood could  veto any attempt to leave the EU on the basis of this referendum.  More importantly, moraly, they should veto such an attempt. Their responsibility is to protect the interests of the Scottish people, this is a sure way of doing that.

[Kythia]

Now an obscure part of the Maastricht Treaty could allow the Brexiteers to get round this, as it does allow for members having referenda to leave the EU. However, it states that a referendum regarding departure from the EU would require a 75% turnout and a 65% mandate.

Do you have any more on this?  The Lisbon treaty supercedes the Maastricht one - it's the same treaty after all - and so the section amended in Lisbon is in force.  I'm actually struggling a little to find the original Maastricht text in a readable format but one would assume that's Section 6, Article 50?  If so, I can't see how that would still be binding even if it was in the document.

EDIT:  Title 6 not Section 6, sorry

[Polymorph]

The act of parliament that set up the referendum stated that the referendum was non-binding.  Yet it is repeated over and over that the Prime Minister, either Cameron now or whoever emerges as leader after a Tory leadership battle, will have to invoke Article 50 of the EU referendum.  Yet this too is a lie.  Firstly the only valid conclusion one can take from last week's vote is that the UK population is split on Europe.  Britain may have spoken but pretty much what it said was "er...".  Secondly, the wording of the Brexit referendum's act was very specific and did not make any reference to the decision of the referendum having to be taken by parliament.  For a referendum to be binding it has to be specifically stated in that referendum's associated act that the referendum result must be followed.  Without that, the only way Britain can legally leave the EU is if the House of Commons passes an act to leave the EU since the preamble to Article 50 states,  “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

Yes, quite true the referendum is non binding. However Mr Cameron said this immediately after the vote and directly before announcing his decision to retire.

"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected," said Mr Cameron. "The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered."

So as we stand at this precise moment the government line is that they will go ahead with leaving. Mr Corbyn too has said he respects the decision.

Since Mr Cameron has left it to whoever replaces him to carry it forward it would be presumptuous to assume who will succeed him, the contenders will not even be announced until Wednesday. And to be frank the labour party seems more concerned with completely destroying itself than any other issue. We will simply have to wait to see who is in charge of what party when the dust settles before we can tell what way the MP's will be instructed to vote by their parties and then see how many rebel.

[Kythia]

Google fu totally failed me.  Here it is  And yeah, I think you're mistaken here.  Granted I've just done searches for appropriate words but I can't find that anywhere.

[Neroon]

Things are often said in the heat of the moment that are often regretted at leisure. The fact remains that less than 40% of those eligible to vote voted for this. The will of the British people is unclear and the consequences of leaving severe.  I cannot see a circumstance where forcing the will of a minority through when an almost equal number oaf people are against and over 27% of the electorate not stating a decision is a wise political decision.

Do you have any more on this? 

I haven't a friend sent me the details along with the comment that he never thought he would have a reason to than John Major.   The point I was trying to make was that this wasthe easier means of leaving that the Lisbon Treaty sought to replace.

[Polymorph]

I believe you may have misconstrued the voting criteria you referred to.

The final exit deal has to be approved by the European Parliament and by the other EU leaders - excluding the UK - using a 'reinforced' qualified majority. That means it has to be agreed by "at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

This refers to the vote by the EU to ratify the negotiated exit treaty and has nothing to do with the referendum at all.

[Kythia]

Ugh, just read that S&P and Fitch have both downgraded our credit rating - that's all three of them now.  Hilariously Fitch list "lower immigration" as one of the reasons they think the economy will continue to decline. Things are pretty screwed, economy-wise.  FTSE continues to fall, pound continues to fall. 

I actually didn't think an emergency budget was going to be necessary but now I'm starting to change my mind.  Something needs to be done and who knows, maybe its that.

[eyeshield22]

It seems like Britain continues to find itself stuck between a rock and a hard place with France, Germany, and Italy declaring no negotiations before article 50 is invoked. It makes sense politically to want to be hard on the UK to prevent other countries that have voiced discontent i.e Czech Republic, and they are also addressing statements made by both Cameron and Johnson about delaying invoking that clause to get a better deal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3662678/Germany-France-Italy-say-no-informal-talks-Britain-EU-exit.html

[Kythia]

It seems like Britain continues to find itself stuck between a rock and a hard place with France, Germany, and Italy declaring no negotiations before article 50 is invoked. It makes sense politically to want to be hard on the UK to prevent other countries that have voiced discontent i.e Czech Republic, and they are also addressing statements made by both Cameron and Johnson about delaying invoking that clause to get a better deal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3662678/Germany-France-Italy-say-no-informal-talks-Britain-EU-exit.html

Yeah, no great surprises there.  It's pretty much what was predicted isn't it.

[Polymorph]

The fact remains that less than 40% of those eligible to vote voted for this. The will of the British people is unclear and the consequences of leaving severe.  I cannot see a circumstance where forcing the will of a minority through when an almost equal number oaf people are against and over 27% of the electorate not stating a decision is a wise political decision.

This is the way we always choose however. At a general election a party will win an outright majority in the house of commons with as low as 35%-40% of the votes cast. Turnout can be as low as 60%-65% so a party can have an outright majority in the commons with as little as 24% (or thereabouts) of the electorate. We had a referendum only a few years back on the notion of proportional representation for parliament but it was overwhelmingly rejected by the people. So every five years we force the will of a far smaller minority through to make decisions that will impact every facet of our lives for years to come.