ChatterBank0 min ago
In Or Out?
19 Answers
On Saturday 16th January Matthew Parris, in his Times article on the EU referendum, wrote,
“Neither side will find a knockdown economic reason for staying or going…but only one side can trade on fear of the unknown. As with the Scottish referendum, only the Leave campaign propose a voyage into uncharted waters. This is what will tip the balance for a Stay result.”
If that should happen, there will be many an AnswerBank right-winger protesting loudly. Accordingly, I do hope they will recall how they reacted towards Scots in favour of independence here when the ‘Noes’ won in Scotland. I’m thinking of all these, “You lost; get over it” and “The SNP will go on demanding referenda until they get the right result” responses.
Has Parris got it right, do you suppose, and - if so - how many of you really will just say, “Yeah, we lost and now we must get used to it”?
“Neither side will find a knockdown economic reason for staying or going…but only one side can trade on fear of the unknown. As with the Scottish referendum, only the Leave campaign propose a voyage into uncharted waters. This is what will tip the balance for a Stay result.”
If that should happen, there will be many an AnswerBank right-winger protesting loudly. Accordingly, I do hope they will recall how they reacted towards Scots in favour of independence here when the ‘Noes’ won in Scotland. I’m thinking of all these, “You lost; get over it” and “The SNP will go on demanding referenda until they get the right result” responses.
Has Parris got it right, do you suppose, and - if so - how many of you really will just say, “Yeah, we lost and now we must get used to it”?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was always struck by the fact that the people urging Scotland to say because unity brings strength were often the same as the ones urging the UK to leave Europe, and by the fact that they seldom seemed to see any parallel, let alone any contradiction.
But the case for leaving doesn't trade on the unknown. It trades on old men who can remember the time before the EU, when Britain was strong (they may be confusing 1950 with 1850) and independent, and imagine that by clicking an electoral control+z they can simply restore the status quo ante.
Of course, where once Britain ruled a third of the globe, their ambition is now to be like Norway (only without the oil), which seems to be lowering the bar considerably.
But the case for leaving doesn't trade on the unknown. It trades on old men who can remember the time before the EU, when Britain was strong (they may be confusing 1950 with 1850) and independent, and imagine that by clicking an electoral control+z they can simply restore the status quo ante.
Of course, where once Britain ruled a third of the globe, their ambition is now to be like Norway (only without the oil), which seems to be lowering the bar considerably.
I agree that the 'fear factor' will influence the result.
I also think that the public's long and deep mistrust of the way the EU operates will ensure a resounding 'No' vote if the referendum invites the electorate the remain within the Union.
My personal view is that the trade aspect of the EU is vastly overstated by the Conservatives.
If the UK's export prices are attractive, then the EU countries will trade, that is basic economics unaltered by any federalist unions built on political chicanery.
The perception of the EU from the public's perspective is an interfering unelected foreign body that rides a gravy train of expenses and makes draconian laws that inhibit our ability to make decisions that affect our daily lives.
A further perception by the public is that membership of the EU is inextricably bound up with the ECHR - reason enough to extricate us from its grasp.
Mr Cameron must know that the minutia he negotiates is meaningless to the referendum voters - perception is everything, and the negative perception of the EU, and European politicians in general, is a mountain far too high for him to climb.
An exit from the EU will happen, and Mr Cameron will resign soon afterwards.
I also think that the public's long and deep mistrust of the way the EU operates will ensure a resounding 'No' vote if the referendum invites the electorate the remain within the Union.
My personal view is that the trade aspect of the EU is vastly overstated by the Conservatives.
If the UK's export prices are attractive, then the EU countries will trade, that is basic economics unaltered by any federalist unions built on political chicanery.
The perception of the EU from the public's perspective is an interfering unelected foreign body that rides a gravy train of expenses and makes draconian laws that inhibit our ability to make decisions that affect our daily lives.
A further perception by the public is that membership of the EU is inextricably bound up with the ECHR - reason enough to extricate us from its grasp.
Mr Cameron must know that the minutia he negotiates is meaningless to the referendum voters - perception is everything, and the negative perception of the EU, and European politicians in general, is a mountain far too high for him to climb.
An exit from the EU will happen, and Mr Cameron will resign soon afterwards.
Ah yes, the blessed days of the 50s and 60s, when Britain was so strong on its own that, apparently, Harold MacMillan literally begged de Gaulle to let the UK join the Common Market...
Of course, the institution has changed since then, in ways I won't claim to understand as I've largely started paying attention only after such changes have happened. What bugs me is that these changes were by and large not only inevitable but hardly hidden in the small print -- anyone who bothered to pay attention to eg the founders of the EU ideal should have known that political union was the ultimate and stated target.
I happen to think that it's a good target, in principle, to move towards fewer and fewer distinct administrations and countries with their own, competing, agendas. From that point of view, the main reason the migrant crisis of the last year or so has been such a problem is because the EU isn't a proper Union yet, and the 27 constituent countries aren't able to work together properly or effectively as a result (of course, even a Union true to its name might have failed just as badly, but it would have been at least rather less comically awful.) For that reason, Cameron's renegotiation attempts bother me as -- well, they are fairly piecemeal anyway, but they are still moving in the opposite direction from the one I think things should be moving in. Ironically, this leads to a plausible alternative reason to vote "no" to the EU -- the theory may be sound but the practice just isn't; perhaps the only way to get a proper, effective EU is to tear down the current one and start over. I'm still going to vote to stay in, though.
Of course, the institution has changed since then, in ways I won't claim to understand as I've largely started paying attention only after such changes have happened. What bugs me is that these changes were by and large not only inevitable but hardly hidden in the small print -- anyone who bothered to pay attention to eg the founders of the EU ideal should have known that political union was the ultimate and stated target.
I happen to think that it's a good target, in principle, to move towards fewer and fewer distinct administrations and countries with their own, competing, agendas. From that point of view, the main reason the migrant crisis of the last year or so has been such a problem is because the EU isn't a proper Union yet, and the 27 constituent countries aren't able to work together properly or effectively as a result (of course, even a Union true to its name might have failed just as badly, but it would have been at least rather less comically awful.) For that reason, Cameron's renegotiation attempts bother me as -- well, they are fairly piecemeal anyway, but they are still moving in the opposite direction from the one I think things should be moving in. Ironically, this leads to a plausible alternative reason to vote "no" to the EU -- the theory may be sound but the practice just isn't; perhaps the only way to get a proper, effective EU is to tear down the current one and start over. I'm still going to vote to stay in, though.
I'm pretty sure on here I have already said that I believe in democracy and will therefore accept the result.
I'm not sure why you think that only right-wingers want out, will polls showing more than 50% wanting out there must be an awful lot of right-wingers not then given some of them clearly want in!
Also, as I have said before on here. If we stay in then we should campaign for a fully integrated Europe. No nations (could have states, 1 tax regime, one min wage, one set of benefits, no skewed contributions (all funds to be raised by tax) etc etc. otherwise it simply wont work. How often have you been in a meeting trying to get just 10 people to agree, let alone 27 - all with very different views.
I'm not sure why you think that only right-wingers want out, will polls showing more than 50% wanting out there must be an awful lot of right-wingers not then given some of them clearly want in!
Also, as I have said before on here. If we stay in then we should campaign for a fully integrated Europe. No nations (could have states, 1 tax regime, one min wage, one set of benefits, no skewed contributions (all funds to be raised by tax) etc etc. otherwise it simply wont work. How often have you been in a meeting trying to get just 10 people to agree, let alone 27 - all with very different views.
Matthew Parris is right.
I didn't actually see the article, but as with all these things there are certain constituencies on both sides who will not be convinced to change. For example there is nothing the Leave'rs could say that would make me support leaving. Naturally 'the public' are sceptical about the governance of an organisation like the EU, but then most are sceptical about the UK governments too. And that doesn't mean they would all be sceptical to the extent of wanting to leave.
There is a very slender majority for 'leave' at the moment but a clear majority of people seem to think we will vote to stay. I think at this stage that is a highly significant fact
I didn't actually see the article, but as with all these things there are certain constituencies on both sides who will not be convinced to change. For example there is nothing the Leave'rs could say that would make me support leaving. Naturally 'the public' are sceptical about the governance of an organisation like the EU, but then most are sceptical about the UK governments too. And that doesn't mean they would all be sceptical to the extent of wanting to leave.
There is a very slender majority for 'leave' at the moment but a clear majority of people seem to think we will vote to stay. I think at this stage that is a highly significant fact
YMB, I didn't say, "I think that only right-wingers want out" for the very simple reason that I don't think that!
However, I did want to see a response specifically from right-wingers, because they were preponderantly the ones who responded in the way I spoke of at the time of the Scottish referendum.
However, I did want to see a response specifically from right-wingers, because they were preponderantly the ones who responded in the way I spoke of at the time of the Scottish referendum.
I think the "OUT" movement will be quite capable of using the "fear factor" given the way the Common Market (a good idea in my opinion) has slowly but relentlessly evolved towards a Fedral European State (a far less acceptable concept in many people's opinion). The fear could be built on extrapolation of the evolution so far into "uncharted waters" considerably less desirable than the mess we've got now.
I was always struck by the fact that the people urging Scotland to say because unity brings strength were often the same as the ones urging the UK to leave Europe, and by the fact that they seldom seemed to see any parallel, let alone any contradiction.
Are you talking about Answerbankers, Jno?
If so I don't agree!
Are you talking about Answerbankers, Jno?
If so I don't agree!
Nobody will be surprised when I say that I sincerely hope Andy is right.
Provided the electorate is given correct information and is not misinformed and fed with hysterical claptrap, I will accept the result and move on if they are foolish enough to vote to remain. There will not be (nor should there be) another referendum for at least ten years (provided there are no dramatic constitutional changes proposed during in that time). My biggest gripe (even bigger than anything the EU has foisted upon the UK) is that we have moved from being a member of a trading bloc of around ten nations with similar economies and are being dragged into a Federal Union of 28 (and counting) widely disparate nations without the UK electorate being consulted. Slice by slice our sovereignty has been eroded, each step "only a little bit different" to what went before "so no big deal". Of course the big deal is the differneces thathave occurred over the past 40 years and if they had been imposed in one lump the electorate would be furious.
“…and the 27 constituent countries aren't able to work together properly or effectively as a result”
It’s 28 actually, jim. Don’t forget little Croatia who ran away to join the circus in 2013. A Freudian Slip, perhaps :-)
However, no matter. Once it got beyond a dozen or so, and particularly when nations with such diverse economies were included they never would be able to work together properly or effectively. When the solid stuff hits the air conditioning it’s every man (nation) for himself. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, most recently with the migrant crisis. The EU spends its time firefighting these crises, usually ineffectively and with just one aim – to preserve the Union at all costs regardless of the outcome and usually regardless of whether the solution addresses the problem or not.
“If we stay in then we should campaign for a fully integrated Europe. No nations (could have states, 1 tax regime, one min wage, one set of benefits, no skewed contributions…”
Be careful of what you wish for, youngmaf. The average GDP per head of the EU as a whole is around $37,500 (plus or minus a fraction). Should full fiscal integration along the lines you wish for be fulfilled the GDP for the EU as a whole will barely change (in fact if current forecasts can be relied upon it will probably drop as much of the EU is in decline). Of course the people of Bulgaria (GDP per head around $18,300), Romania ($20,500) and Greece ($26,700) will be more than pleased to see their country’s per capita GDP double. In fact anyone in the 18 nations where the GDP per head is less than the average will be delighted. However, people in the UK ($40,800), Germany ($46,900) the Netherlands ($48,300) and Ireland ($51,100) may not be too chuffed. I shudder to think what the half a million poor souls in Luxembourg ($93,200) will think.
The nations of the EU are too disparate for such a scheme to work without widespread hardship. That is why the euro does not work and that is why full fiscal union will not work. Before they cast their votes the people of the UK need to be told that such a plan involves widespread redistribution of (their) wealth. They only need to sit down and do the sums.
Provided the electorate is given correct information and is not misinformed and fed with hysterical claptrap, I will accept the result and move on if they are foolish enough to vote to remain. There will not be (nor should there be) another referendum for at least ten years (provided there are no dramatic constitutional changes proposed during in that time). My biggest gripe (even bigger than anything the EU has foisted upon the UK) is that we have moved from being a member of a trading bloc of around ten nations with similar economies and are being dragged into a Federal Union of 28 (and counting) widely disparate nations without the UK electorate being consulted. Slice by slice our sovereignty has been eroded, each step "only a little bit different" to what went before "so no big deal". Of course the big deal is the differneces thathave occurred over the past 40 years and if they had been imposed in one lump the electorate would be furious.
“…and the 27 constituent countries aren't able to work together properly or effectively as a result”
It’s 28 actually, jim. Don’t forget little Croatia who ran away to join the circus in 2013. A Freudian Slip, perhaps :-)
However, no matter. Once it got beyond a dozen or so, and particularly when nations with such diverse economies were included they never would be able to work together properly or effectively. When the solid stuff hits the air conditioning it’s every man (nation) for himself. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, most recently with the migrant crisis. The EU spends its time firefighting these crises, usually ineffectively and with just one aim – to preserve the Union at all costs regardless of the outcome and usually regardless of whether the solution addresses the problem or not.
“If we stay in then we should campaign for a fully integrated Europe. No nations (could have states, 1 tax regime, one min wage, one set of benefits, no skewed contributions…”
Be careful of what you wish for, youngmaf. The average GDP per head of the EU as a whole is around $37,500 (plus or minus a fraction). Should full fiscal integration along the lines you wish for be fulfilled the GDP for the EU as a whole will barely change (in fact if current forecasts can be relied upon it will probably drop as much of the EU is in decline). Of course the people of Bulgaria (GDP per head around $18,300), Romania ($20,500) and Greece ($26,700) will be more than pleased to see their country’s per capita GDP double. In fact anyone in the 18 nations where the GDP per head is less than the average will be delighted. However, people in the UK ($40,800), Germany ($46,900) the Netherlands ($48,300) and Ireland ($51,100) may not be too chuffed. I shudder to think what the half a million poor souls in Luxembourg ($93,200) will think.
The nations of the EU are too disparate for such a scheme to work without widespread hardship. That is why the euro does not work and that is why full fiscal union will not work. Before they cast their votes the people of the UK need to be told that such a plan involves widespread redistribution of (their) wealth. They only need to sit down and do the sums.
No, it (27 rather than 28) was a genuine mistake -- thanks for correcting.
"Provided the electorate is given correct information and is not misinformed and fed with hysterical claptrap, I will accept the result and move on if they are foolish enough to vote to remain. "
Way to get your gracious defeat response in early... it's actually just a little annoying to read, in some sense, because automatically it dismisses any possible contemplation of legitimacy of the opposing viewpoint. This is, to say the least, unfair, as the EU does bring benefits. I'm not going to launch into a propaganda-esque post here (I'll save that for when the campaign proper rolls around), but suffice it to say that I think the benefits v. disadvantages debate is one that should be acknowledged as subtle, and certainly not one-sided. In either direction; I don't buy the idea that leaving the EU will be an unmitigated disaster (although it will certainly have some negative consequences), any more than people should think that staying in the EU shackles the country to continued mediocrity. The real impact of the EU is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, no?
"Provided the electorate is given correct information and is not misinformed and fed with hysterical claptrap, I will accept the result and move on if they are foolish enough to vote to remain. "
Way to get your gracious defeat response in early... it's actually just a little annoying to read, in some sense, because automatically it dismisses any possible contemplation of legitimacy of the opposing viewpoint. This is, to say the least, unfair, as the EU does bring benefits. I'm not going to launch into a propaganda-esque post here (I'll save that for when the campaign proper rolls around), but suffice it to say that I think the benefits v. disadvantages debate is one that should be acknowledged as subtle, and certainly not one-sided. In either direction; I don't buy the idea that leaving the EU will be an unmitigated disaster (although it will certainly have some negative consequences), any more than people should think that staying in the EU shackles the country to continued mediocrity. The real impact of the EU is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, no?
No. It will not sway the result. Perhaps reduce the brexit winning margin only.
The comparison with the Scottish referendum is inappropriate. Britain is a single island, there is not the same logic for splitting part off. Whereas Europe is a continent and it seems illogical to try to make and unwieldy large country of different cultures.
The comparison with the Scottish referendum is inappropriate. Britain is a single island, there is not the same logic for splitting part off. Whereas Europe is a continent and it seems illogical to try to make and unwieldy large country of different cultures.
I don’t see any referendum leaving winners or losers, jim. I can never understand politicians who speak of “winning” a referendum. The idea is to ask the electorate what they want on a specific issue. The winners are the electorate for being given the chance to choose, but I know what you mean.
So long as things like this don’t hold sway:
http://
“Meanwhile, the education secretary Nicky Morgan is warning young people could be “cut off from the world” if the UK leaves.”
(God knows how youngsters outsde the EU get on).
Or Mr Clegg’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that “three million jobs in the UK depend on our EU membership”
So long as the facts are accurately and fairly presented people must vote what way they want and I will respect the result. But I won't hide my disappointment if the "Leave" vote does not hold sway.
So long as things like this don’t hold sway:
http://
“Meanwhile, the education secretary Nicky Morgan is warning young people could be “cut off from the world” if the UK leaves.”
(God knows how youngsters outsde the EU get on).
Or Mr Clegg’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that “three million jobs in the UK depend on our EU membership”
So long as the facts are accurately and fairly presented people must vote what way they want and I will respect the result. But I won't hide my disappointment if the "Leave" vote does not hold sway.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quite An Achievement In 5 Months.....
News5 mins ago
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
