BRexit : Shall UK stay in EU or go now?

[mpicco]

Yeah I dont think anyone can claim that the UK, or its people, were fooled into anything. The goal of the EU always was to have a more unified Europe in all matters.

 

[xuri]

<edited as I don't actually care too much>

So far it seems to me the political and news media classes break down in to two categories.

#1: If we leave the EU the UK will become a far-right state like Nazi Germany.
#2: If we stay in the EU the UK will become a Muslim theocracy like Iran.

I suspect both sides are talking bullshit. I honestly do wish that both sides of this debate would just stop fear mongering. It's gotten to the point where it's almost comical.

 

[kunedog]

It must have been such a shock when suddenly out of nowhere there was this parliament building in Strasbourg and equally suddenly people were asked to vote for their european representatives in 1979.

/sarkasm

Hey, maybe that was a shock, since the common market promise was made (according to the vid) in 1973, and the direct 67% "stay" vote in 1975. Sorry, it was my mistake to cut that quoted sentence short.

I take your point about the long-term election success of pro-EU politicians, but that's obviously not quite the same (nor quite as conclusive of the will of the people) as a referendum, and his point was that the people never got to vote on it after any of the major (or minor) political (rather than market/trade) machinary was put into place.

Out of curiousity, do you think (regardless of the referendum outcome) that Article 50 (the right to leave the EU) should go away?

 

[MacGuffin]

The irony of it all is that after the experiences of WW I and WW II the allies explicitely wanted a more unified Europe and Churchill was one of the strongest supporters. Turns out the idealism and the solidarity stop when national pride is touched and when prejudices, xenophobia, envy and imagined discrimination become more important than international relationships, tolerance, friendship, cultural exchange and candour.

The idea that international cooperation only makes sense when you gain more than you invest in a measurable, material way, disgusts me. Life in our times has got to be more than you can measure with profits and money.

I don't want this to sound cocky but it sometimes appears to me the continent has learned its lesson from the blood-drenched, messy and troubled 20th century better than our friends from the British Isles...

 

[Interrobang]

[...] Out of curiousity, do you think (regardless of the referendum outcome) that Article 50 (the right to leave the EU) should go away?

No, Article 50 should stay under any circumstances. I?m pro-EU but of course States should have the possibility of leaving the EU. Hell, I?d like to see an Article which let?s us throw out a couple of states again which shouldn?t have been allowed to join the EU in the first place

And I don?t think anyone is trying to make Article 50 "go away". That just scare tactics about something imaginary - and thus not really helping the discussion if GB should remain in the EU or not - and what the EU should come down to be and how we (europeans) can live together peacefully in an Union in a way that we all profit from it ...

 

[MacGuffin]

No, Article 50 should stay under any circumstances. I?m pro-EU but of course States should have the possibility of leaving the EU. Hell, I?d like to see an Article which let?s us throw out a couple of states again which shouldn?t have been allowed to join the EU in the first place

Fully agree with that. Some countries definitely haven't been ripe enough to join the EU. I can only assume that political opportunism outweighed reason and sanity in some cases...

As it is now, the hardest form of "punishment" is to take away a country's right to vote witin the EU... all the niceties and benefits still remain, even if some rightwing party decides that censorship and cutting freedom of speech is an effective method of making criticism disappear.

 

[xuri]

As it is now, the hardest form of "punishment" is to take away a country's right to vote witin the EU...

Therein lies the problem. What is it with the EU and not allowing people to vote on things?

I'm actually indifferent about the EU and whether or not the UK remains. But I don't like this thing of not allowing people to vote. The EU really just is not democratic enough.

I don't even know who the president is. But I do know I wasn't consulted.

 

[narf]

Were you consulted on the President of England?

 

[xuri]

Were you consulted on the President of England?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Is it just a cheap shot at our electoral system or there is a point there that I'm not understanding?

 

[narf]

Pick one, both are valid:

- The Queen as your head of state ("president"), you weren't consulted on her
- The EU doesn't have a president, so not being consulted on the president of the EU is a pointless argument

 

[xuri]

Pick one, both are valid:

- The Queen as your head of state ("president"), you weren't consulted on her
- The EU doesn't have a president, so not being consulted on the president of the EU is a pointless argument

The Queen is not analogous to a president. I'm also not a royalist. I'd get rid of her in a shot if I could.

The European parliament does have a president. You're being picky there as I'm sure you knew what I meant. It also wasn't an argument, of any kind, it was an observation.

So no, no, neither are valid.

 

[narf]

The president is the head of state, the Queen is the head of state. Who else in the UK would be analogous to a president?

Of the set of presidents of EU institutions, the president of the parliament is the one you were most consulted on as he's elected by the MEPs you elected. He doesn't really have any powers, and is somewhat akin to your speaker (elected in the same way) / lord speaker (lol elections) of the houses.

As for knowing what you meant, no... just no. There's no president, but there's a president of the european commission, a president of the european council, a presidency of the council of the EU, a president of the european parliament, a president of the court of justice, a president of the court of auditors, a president of the central bank, ... knowing what you mean by "president" is nigh-on impossible.

 

[xuri]

The president is the head of state, the Queen is the head of state. Who else in the UK would be analogous to a president?

The prime minister.

Even if you were correct. It still doesn't invalidate what I said. Countering a point by saying "Well, X is just as bad as Y." is no kind of argument. I'm not a fan of our political system and the last time we had a referendum on the issue I voted to change it.

Of the set of presidents of EU institutions, the president of the parliament is the one you were most consulted on as he's elected by the MEPs you elected. He doesn't really have any powers, and is somewhat akin to your speaker (elected in the same way) / lord speaker (lol elections) of the houses.

Fair enough. Though I still don't really understand why you think the EU is perfectly democratic. My friends, most of whom are extremely pro-EU, would concede this point. You seem to think I'm just bashing and want the UK out. I don't especially want the UK out. I'm pretty much indifferent on the question. Therefore I'll be voting for the status quo. But that doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism.

 

[narf]

The prime minister.

Your understanding of the term "president" is weird then. The prime minister is the head of government, the president is the head of state. Cameron isn't the head of state, the Queen is. The president of the european parliament is neither.

Fair enough. Though I still don't really understand why you think the EU is perfectly democratic. My friends, most of whom are extremely pro-EU, would concede this point. You seem to think I'm just bashing and want the UK out. I don't especially want the UK out. I'm pretty much indifferent on the question. Therefore I'll be voting for the status quo. But that doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism.

I've never said the EU is perfectly democratic, did I? I don't think I did. There are a lot of indirections, for example people elect national parliament, national parliament elects head of government, head of government appoints government, national governments (as the european council) appoint commissioners to what basically is the executive branch of the EU... most steps of the way are fairly democratic, but the more steps you take the less it feels like democracy in the direct, by-the-people way.
Of the offices of the EU, the president of the parliament has the fewest indirections: people -> MEPs -> president of the parliament, which is why I'm so stumped you picked him for an example of lack of democracy.
A better example would be the president of the central bank, he yields tremendous power and is de facto appointed by the Euro states... the UK has extremely little say in his appointment while his interest rate policies, or bond buying, etc. influences the entire EU economy.

 

[xuri]

Your understanding of the term "president" is weird then. The prime minister is the head of government, the president is the head of state. Cameron isn't the head of state, the Queen is. The president of the european parliament is neither.

She's more of a figurehead of state. The PM even tells her what to say in her annual speech. But as I said previously. Saying "X is just as bad as Y" doesn't mean anything. The British don't have a choice where the monarchy is concerned.

I've never said the EU is perfectly democratic, did I? I don't think I did.

You implied it by jumping on my post. If you agree with the criticism I was making why did you try to counter it?

A better example would be the president of the central bank, he yields tremendous power and is de facto appointed by the Euro states... the UK has extremely little say in his appointment while his interest rate policies, or bond buying, etc. influences the entire EU economy.

Okay. Let's go with that example then.

Ahem. *clears throat*


I'm actually indifferent about the EU and whether or not the UK remains. But I don't like this thing of not allowing people to vote. The EU really just is not democratic enough.

I don't even know who the president of the central bank is. But I do know I wasn't consulted.


There. Does that meet your requirements?

 

[GRtak]

I think I got all of the links right, but they are on the main link if not.


Debullshitifying the Brexit numbers

On the BBC's More or Less podcast (previously), Tim Harford and his team carefully unpick the numerical claims made by both sides in the UK/EU referendum debate.

This series of short programmes is illuminating, neutral, and admirable in its ability to deliver straightforward, evidence-based perspectives on an emotionally charged issue.

So far, the series has run four parts:

* The Cost of EU Membership (MP3)

* Immigration (MP3)

* Law (MP3)

* Regulation (MP3)

I frequently cite More or Less as the kind of public media that makes the country that pays for it a better place. By working with the Open University, Harford and co use current events to teach statistical literacy while simultaneously using statistics to illuminate current events, and manage to be witty, charming, and engrossing all the while.

Wherever you stand on the EU referendum, you owe it to yourself to listen to these short (<15m) programmes.

 

[narf]

She's more of a figurehead of state. The PM even tells her what to say in her annual speech. But as I said previously. Saying "X is just as bad as Y" doesn't mean anything. The British don't have a choice where the monarchy is concerned.

Our president is also mostly a figurehead of state. He makes speeches, has representative duties, and has very limited temporary vetoing power over new laws in that he gets to sign them to be official, but that's what many heads of state do.
It's what distinguishes a head of state / UK-style monarch / president in a parliamentary democracy from a head of government / prime minister / chancellor.
Side note: A US-style president is very different in that he's both head of state and head of government.

As for a choice - of course the British have a choice where the monarchy is concerned. If the people as a whole wanted to get rid of it, it would be gotten rid of. Elect appropriate people and make such laws, or have a referendum like the brexit one, or have a revolution.
I'd rather phrase it "The British choose not to have a choice where the monarchy is concerned".

You implied it by jumping on my post. If you agree with the criticism I was making why did you try to counter it?

I jumped on your post because of the stupidity of "I don't even know who the president is. But I do know I wasn't consulted."
- there is no president
- switching to presidents of EU institutions, if you don't even know who they are and what they do I don't think you should even be consulted
- you were technically consulted through indirect democracy, in that people elected by you elected other people who appointed other people who elected those presidents, or similar chains of indirection.

I don't even know who the president of the central bank is. But I do know I wasn't consulted.

See above, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to consult people on matters they're not informed about.
Sticking with the central bank, I don't even think it'd be a good idea to have the general public directly elect the president of the central bank. There are countless positions in all governments that wield power but aren't suitable for direct elections - it's why we have indirect democracy virtually everywhere.
Take SCOTUS justices as a current example, they're not directly elected - does that make the US undemocratic?

There. Does that meet your requirements?

It's better, but still pointless

 

[SirEdward]

All the section is worth, but this is priceless.

 

[GRtak]

 

[jack_christie]

The odious turd

Michael Gove compares experts warning against Brexit to Nazis who smeared Albert Einstein's work as he threatens to quit David Cameron's Cabinet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-experts-warning-against-brexit-to-nazis-wh/

Nigel Farage has NOT apologised for THAT poster

https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...boris-johnson-sadiq-khan-and-others-take-part

People are calling out Ukip's new anti-EU poster for resembling 'outright Nazi propaganda'

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...sembling-outright-nazi-propaganda--WkTYUB18EW

A fascinating insight into #Brexit and Boris Johnson, by his former colleague.

Who Is to Blame for Brexit?s Appeal? British Newspapers

LONDON ? No one should be surprised that Britain could vote to leave the European Union on Thursday. For decades, British newspapers have offered their readers an endless stream of biased, misleading and downright fallacious stories about Brussels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/opinion/who-is-to-blame-for-brexits-appeal-british-newspapers.html