The Referendum.

[Stanley]

I think I am slightly more optimistic about the fate of the World than I am about the referendum process. I suspect that we will vote to stay but agree that it won't make a damn of difference. I have always had the same attitude to the annual budget. Despite any headlines it never seemed to make much difference.

[Bruff]

As predictable as the dog returning to its vomit, the Brexiters have now moved on to immigration. I wager we will hear very little else from them other than immigration between now and referendum. This is hardly surprising. They have been comprehensively trashed on the economic arguments and can’t even agree among themselves what our future trading relationships might be. It might be Norway-style or Swiss but that relationship with the EU requires not just free movement but Schengen as well as almost every Directive they all bang on about, and so that’s out the window. The ‘Anglosphere’ arrangement has crumbled around them with the US, Aus, NZ and most recently Canada all coming out in favour of remain. WTO rules have been mooted but the head of the WTO cocked his proverbial leg all over this, resulting in Mr Gove’s bizarre intervention that our relationship with the EU could at least could be like Albania’s. Which would be fine, if the President of Albania hadn’t more or less immediately come out and said he’d not recommend any country being like Albania.

Still not to worry........

Except we should. If we leave, the EU will give us no favours whatsoever. Unless we agree to the terms of the single market and free movement, then the EU will essentially downgrade us to rival status and do all it can to make sure Brexit is the biggest mistake we made. I know that Brexiters bang on about how much the EU exports to us and so how much they need us if you like, and that BMW say would never let Frau Dr Merkel play this hard ball and all that gubbins. But unfortunately this just exposes the typical lack of understanding of the European project by many, if not most, in the UK. Because the EU is not just an economic project it is a political project and has been since the very first part of the Treaty of Rome was drafted *. The economic project is simply a means to this end. Clearly, one might have concerns about the political nature of the project but one should not make the mistake of assuming the economics will win out. It won’t. The EU will absolutely do what it can to ensure that no other MS takes the ‘Brexit’ route. And it will do this by making sure the UK gets no favours at all and it is seen as a huge mistake. It’ll take a hit from this approach (8% of EU trade is with the UK after all), but that will be as nothing to the hit a wider ‘exit contagion’ would deliver. And if I were the rest of the EU I’d be driving this hard bargain at the same time as poaching parts of the UK economy to make up the economic hit Brexit had kindly delivered. This is hard politics not the rather prosaic bottom line calculations the Brexiters assume.

I know I’ve used a lot of ‘wills’ there, a certainty of view on what is of course an unknown. But I cannot see any other outcome. I cannot see any argument for any other approach and outcome given the dual economic and political nature of the European Project. I have though yet to hear any Brexiter recognise it as informing the EU’s approach post-Brexit and provide a cogent argument to how they will deal with this. They seem to assume our exceptionalism will win out. A part of me will take a perverse delight in seeing them disabused of this notion.


Richard Broughton

*One argument I have heard for the tendency of the UK to see the EU simply in economic terms reflects the experiences of WWII. During the war, the UK suffered aerial bombardment, family separation, rationing and other privations and of course the deaths of many, many thousands of loved ones. But this is as absolutely nothing compared to the experiences in mainland Europe where millions and millions were massacred, slaughtered, exterminated; whole cities and villages levelled from the air and the ground, often by allied guns; millions of people displaced, raped, brutalised. I could go on. Out of this came the vision for an ‘ever closer union of the people of Europe’ which is at its heart a vision for rather more than a ‘common market’.

[Tizer]

"Clearly, one might have concerns about the political nature of the project..."
When the European Economic Community began I welcomed it and promoted its objectives whenever I had the chance. Looking back, I was then motivated more by the issues listed in Bruff's postscript, wanting to see the nations of Europe united together and avoid further war. Then I began to appreciate the economic benefits too. In more recent times I became disillusioned with the apparent bureaucracy and loss of sovereignty. If, at that point, I had been forced to make a snap decision on In or Out I probably would have voted Out. But the build up to the referendum has changed all that and forced me to think more deeply and clearly about the potential consequences of our decision. It's crystal clear to me now that I'd been too influenced by the less important issues gleefully raised by the news media and that leaving the EU would be a terrible decision. The EU project isn't perfect but it's far better than the alternative for us, and staying on the inside gives us some influence on how Europe evolves and a veto when its needed.

[Sue]

I agree totally Tiz. Can I quote you on my Facebook page you have put it so well

[Stanley]

What good posts.... I agree totally with both of you. Like Tiz, my main driver has always been my memories of living through 1939-1945 and the aftermath, believe me, anything is better than that. As for the imperative towards closer political union and the mythical 'Loss of Sovereignty', I can see no other sensible way forward in global political terms than some form of federation. It would be far more helpful if discussions about that were conducted rationally and the advantages explored. Tusk made a speech yesterday in which he laid out the dangers to Europe inherent in a Brexit and over concentration on 'Utopian ideas of political integration'. His concerns are ours as well, the present climate encourages extreme views and the rise of Right Wing and even Fascist tendencies. Look at the hysteria over immigration.... Greater mobility of populations world wide is a fact of life and instead of doing a Cnut and trying to hold it back we should be concentrating on managing it. One thing is certain, any deterioration in living conditions triggered either by crazy ideas like Brexit, failing economies or climate change will increase movement.
Then there is the question of the ethics of abandoning the EU Project. Apart from anything else, Europe would never forgive us. Any credibility we have in Europe is based on the fact that we embraced the current project in WW2 which was to bring peace to the world and oppose evil. I basically oppose violence but that was the right course. Funny thing is we never complained about the influx of Johnny Foreigner then when they flooded in to help us fight Hitler.
I heard on R4 last night that Jeremy Corbyn is expected to make a speech today making it clear that the Labour Party favours remaining in the EU. About time! I see the political reasons for not joining in what is quite rightly seen as private Tory grief, let them rip themselves apart, but the time has come for clarity based on the facts.

[Bruff]

I don’t know why folk want our ‘sovereignty’ back as I wasn’t aware we had lost it. I was under the impression that Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and give notice of our leaving the EU. Or Parliament could pass a Bill for a referendum on our membership. And you’d think wouldn’t you, that if there was one thing Brussels would be keen to stop us doing it’d be to hold a referendum on our leaving. But they didn’t. Because they can’t. So not having lost any sovereignty at all, we went and passed a Bill for a referendum.

In probably the largest piece of work carried out during the previous coalition Government by the Civil Service, the ‘balance of competence’ between the UK and the EU was examined across all aspects of Government. In simple terms it looked at how the EU affects the UK or if you like, the extent to which the EU intervenes in daily life in the UK. You’d think wouldn’t you that if we’d ‘lost our sovereignty’, this review would paint a sorry picture of an emasculated UK beholden to the caprice of Brussels.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Across multiple volumes (thirty two!), there was no conclusion that showed too much power resided in Brussels and there was no case at all for repatriating any powers to Westminster or Whitehall. So as this was not at all what the ‘blue’ side of the coalition wanted by way of conclusions, the reports were buried (it’s online though). Hardly anyone is aware of it. But it basically demolishes the case that Brussels sticks its nose into our business unduly.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

What a useful contributor you are Richard. I had never heard of that study and wonder how many politicians know about it..... And of course there are the advantages to ordinary people in terms of Human Rights etc. which very seldom get a mention. I wonder how secure the ex-pats living in Europe feel at the moment?
My guess is that we will vote to stay in but if we do it will be an accident..... Roll on four weeks today!

[Tizer]

I agree totally Tiz. Can I quote you on my Facebook page you have put it so well

Of course you can, Sue - the more we promote the reasons for staying in the better. And thanks for your praise. You might want also to add a link to this OG topic so the valuable comments and information of others can be promoted too.

[Whyperion]

Still consider the economic ( I have the graphs somewhere to prove it ) , that Economic Unions are worse for consumers than free trade with all nations, arguement that staying in the EU is not necessarily good.

There are some EU regulations that are not good for British Business ( but argueably Westminster and Local laws are not good for businesses either ). I don't mean those that are there for consumer safety, good employee respect, or environmental well-being but restrictions on trade in market places and monopoly protections.

[Sue]

I have done that Tiz and referred people to this forum

[plaques]

but restrictions on trade in market places and monopoly protections.

Monopoly protections and all manner of restrictive practices were the hallmark of the monarchy and the attendant aristocracy. Puritan capitalism with their emphasis on free trade gradually saw this off along with King Charles Ist head. But as we now know 'Laissez-faire' trading also led to some very distorted markets. World trade certainly spread the overall wealth with some traders getting very rich but at the same time making some workers very poor and even slaves. (see Bob's bits). Taxation of the top echelons was still widely resisted, as it still is today, but helped the improve the overall conditions of the working classes. So how do we now define 'free' trade. Do we let everything just rip, back to laissez-faire and Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" or try to control it in a balanced way that will be best for the country as a whole. If you want to really know what will happen on a leave vote forget what they say just watch the money.

[Stanley]

All the commentators are agreed on one thing, the gloves are off in the Tory Party, it's getting nasty and will become worse in the next three weeks.

[Tizer]

One of the latest estimates is that Brexit would result in a 1.5% drop in our GDP. What's not mentioned so widely is that the same analysis predicts that Brexit would bring a drop of 1.0% for the rest of the EU. That's worse for the EU than it might sound, because it's already falling more than in the UK. Being focused on our own problems we don't hear so much about the effects of Brexit on the other EU countries but there are elections coming up and fears of swings to more extreme political parties. Spain has an election 3 days after our referendum and Podemos has got stronger since their December election which left the country without a properly functioning government. Another concern is that there will be economic chaos the day after the referendum and so there's going to be a release of 500 billion euros to stabilise the markets. I can't help thinking that someone's going to make a fortune out of this referendum while the rest of us suffer whichever way it goes.

The Brexiteers must have missed out on geography lessons, particularly the bit where you learn that Europe is a continent and it includes the UK and Ireland. The continental shelf doesn't end until way out there to the west. We're only an island in the sense that the water level is now high enough on this part of the continent to put a continuous stretch where humans once lived. We're a part of Europe whether the Brexiteers like it or not.

[Stanley]

Dead right Tiz. Until about 6,500BC you could walk from Barlick to the shores of the Bosporus. (LINK)
You make the same point I did a few days ago. This ridiculous 'campaign' is totally self-centred. Nobody ever mentions the damage we could do the Europe. Any affection they have for us is based on our actions in WW2, if Brexit succeeds they will never forgive us if the fall out leads, as some say it could, to very serious consequences for the EU. It's all speculation of course but one thing is certain, a lot of things would never be the same again and none of the possible consequences are good! It's hard to identify a parallel in history, the nearest I have got is 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.

[Tizer]

Gove's attitude on the EU seems to parallel his attitude to the English language - completely ignore all the evidence and expect people to `do as I say'. Another parallel is the way he supports the oddball language stickler N.M. Gwnne and the oddball EU Leaver B. Johnson. If I wore a colourful robe and a pointy hat speckled with shiny stars, and made firm pronouncements that the Earth is flat I'm sure Gove would rush out a demand to get the schoolbooks changed immediately!

[Bruff]

I guess some of the 1% EU drop might be made up by the French eyeing up our aerospace, quite a few places eyeing financial services and well, other parts of the EU looking at which subsidiaries they have in a non-EU UK that could be brought back into the EU. I have to say I’m not entirely relaxed about the impact of our exit on our aerospace industry for example. Or cars, despite some fool yesterday saying no matter we will always be able to sell Bentleys to the Germans. UK science being forced away from EU science funding (and we are by far the biggest recipient of this) would also increase the pot for the rest of the EU, with perhaps a likely exodus of the brightest and best scientists following. Interesting isn’t it that we hear nothing of the ‘brain drain’ these days when it was everywhere back in the 1970s. One should not underestimate the impact of the EU in stalling this and there is a very real risk we will see the drain opening again with the consequent impact on our economic performance

The economic consequences for the whole of the EU, indeed the world given the size of the EU economy and market, is very well-understood in the EU. And it’s one reason why if we do exit, we will very likely get absolutely no favours at all from anyone, indeed I would not be at all surprised if the EU drives the hardest bargain possible. I would expect free-movement as per Schengen if we were to have access at all to the single market and if that is a no-no for the UK (and it would have to be as free movement is all the Brexiters bang on about), then we will be declared third-party or competitor status and we will have to make do with what we can. The notion that this would not happen because ‘we sell more to them that they do to us’ or something or other is fanciful: this is volume trade and pays no attention to the relativities that inform trade negotiations. Nor does it pay any attention to the political pillar of the EU, a fatal oversight.

Still not to worry, we have ‘£350M’ a week to spend if we exit*. We can spend that on making up EU research. As well as the NHS. And the farmers. And our fisherman. And a VAT cut on fuel. Have I missed anything out? Oh yes. Funds for Cornwall and all the pit villages. EU arts funding, we can replace that. That 350M will make up all of that. Or maybe not.

You know, can I make another point here? We are useless with big numbers, we humans. £350M – doesn’t that sound a lot? Well yes it does, but as the NHS Chief has said, it’s only days’ worth of NHS funding. Just days. All the money we give to the EU, that £13B? Yes, 13 billion pounds. Well, it’s 1% more or less of the UK’s public spending. That is 1p in every £ or if you like, we spend 99p on other things.

Richard Broughton

*The £350M is of course a lie. But then, as a country we don’t really bother about lying anymore. Standards have dropped. People are very happy to accept the lie and sign up behind the liar that spouted it.

[Bruff]

Well yes, Mr Gove seems to take a strange delight in dismissing out of hand expert evidence and advice or revelling in the fact that most experts disagree with him. This latter is not unusual; it’s the world of the odd-ball and conspiracist: all the experts disagree with me, therefore I must be right. David Icke is a good example of this type. Such people also make pleas to common sense, rules of thumb, gut feeling and the like. I don’t mind this sort of reasoning as it can be useful if you’re really thirsty and the only available water is the toilet bowl; it’s less useful for when you have to think about collecting your potable water from another source using a sheet or tarpaulin and string. Or, when balancing the economic, political, geopolitical, societal and other impacts of our EU membership. Here I think you need a bit more than common sense or a gut feeling.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Mrs Tiz passed me a link to a web page on the referendum written by Martin Lewis, the MoneySavingsExpert.com man. He's trying to be independent and he raises some figures of the type quoted by Bruff. It's worth a look.. LINK

[Tripps]

I heard him on the radio this morning. Quite impressive, and fair minded. He said as I recall it - that since he was by nature 'risk averse' he had decided to vote stay. He said his decision was on a 55% - 45% basis, since he could also see the exit point of view.
He said -
"I’m sorry, but the most important thing to understand is: there are no facts about what happens next. Anyone who tells you they KNOW what’ll happen if we leave the EU is a liar. "

[Stanley]

The thing that worries me as the vote approaches is that it is the Bentley fool and his ilk who are most wound up and perhaps most likely to vote. This momentous decision could be decided by those people..... (And no matter what the consequences, if we exit they will tell us we are better off....)
This is the 'democracy' of the mad house.
I've just heard a Brexiteer on World Service saying that if we exit Cameron is still the best man to be Prime Minister. Really?

[cloghopper]

What a useful contributor you are Richard. I had never heard of that study and wonder how many politicians know about it..... And of course there are the advantages to ordinary people in terms of Human Rights etc. which very seldom get a mention. I wonder how secure the ex-pats living in Europe feel at the moment?
My guess is that we will vote to stay in but if we do it will be an accident..... Roll on four weeks today!

Well there is one ex pat here who feels very secure, whatever is voted in the referndum. You see I established my right to residence here long before the UK became e member of what was then the 'common market'; based on other treaties to which the UK is signed uo to 'OCSE'. If, as I hope, the vote is for 'out', to most ex pats it won't make a great deal of diference to most of their situations. There may be a realtively smallfall in the value of some pension payments, not much else. You see EU countries do in any case apply some restrictions in 'free movement'. After 90 days you have to apply for residence, to be accepted for residence you either have a work contract, a pension from your country of origin, or 6500 eurines in the bank. The real issue in the UK (and elsewhere) is the regulatory burden, and erosion of common law. Brussels directives are based on Roman and Napoleonic codes; designed for illiterate peoples who needed to be told what they could and couldn't do. The 10 commandments are 100 words, Magna Carta is about 2000 words, the Bill of Rights the same. The Brussels directive on anything is not les than 100,000 words. Think again folks, think very carefully.
(no fear, being away over 15 years means I don't get a vote anyway)
all the best,
cloggy

[Bruff]

That’s an interesting point of view, particularly your views on the issue of the regulatory burden. The ‘word count’ you quote is a very common illustrative flourish in this country and is essentially meaningless as well as being factually wrong. Well done for not quoting the usual one though, which references the Lord’s Prayer, the 10 Commandments, the Gettysburg Address and importantly EU regulations on the sale of cabbages. There are 29,911words on the sale of cabbages apparently!

I say importantly because this 29,911 words on EU regulations on the sale of cabbages is exactly the same number of words which, back in the 1950s, US food brokers were claiming as the amount of words now in US cabbage sale regulations ( the US Government first got involved in cabbage sale regulation during WWII). Some years later this exact same 29,911 was quoted by Pres. Reagan. Politicians in this country have used this exact 29,911 not just for cabbages but also for EU regulations on for example the sale of duck eggs, caramel and cauliflowers. Isn’t that quite remarkable?

So basically, the word count illustration is an absolute nonsense, easily disproved. Just as the variant ‘no EU directive on anything is less than 100,000 words’ is an absolute nonsense as my two minutes on the Commission’s website and a word count of Directives has just illustrated. The first two I randomly selected had about 4,000 (on a workplace health and safety matter) and about 3,000 (on mediation in certain civil and commercial matters). Somewhat less that the 100,000 claimed.

This would be hilarious if it were not so serious. We here in the UK have been battered with this sort of misinformation for years and years and now there are very many who refuse to acknowledge the misinformation out right when the evidence is put in front of their faces. It is very difficult to have a sensible debate and discussion in the face of this ignorance. I hope that you will refrain now from using this illustrative trick. It does tend, if you don’t mind me saying,to rather diminish anything one might say on the very legitimate question of the balance and nature of any regulatory burden.

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

designed for illiterate peoples who needed to be told what they could and couldn't do.

All our laws are based on things you can't do. It is a well known fact that from William 1, remember he was a Frenchman, all laws were in French and Latin. It was always useful to keep the lower orders ignorant of any standing laws, better to keep them poor and ignorant so they are easier to govern. The Europian Court has just ruled that you can't lock someone up without following the correct procedure. A big fuss has been made of this by the immigration brigade but the reality is that the courts are protecting ordinary people from the excesses of authority. From what I understand coming out of the common market would be about changing the rules on trade, laws governing people are subject to a separate treaty

[Bruff]

The EU currently has competence in four areas: consumer rights/protections; environmental concerns/protection; citizen and worker rights/protection, and then matters relating to trade and the operation of the single market. If we vote ‘no’ then the day after we are no longer a member of the EU and so de facto not a member of the single market (though formally this will not happen overnight, it will happen unless we negotiate for access). This is because to have access to the single market you have either to be a member of the EU or have negotiated access to it on certain terms, like Norway for example. In that sense then yes we would not be bound by the single market Directives, but nor would we bound by the consumer, environmental and citizen protections.

If by laws governing people we mean human rights though, then this is different as the European Court of Human Rights is nothing at all to do with the EU. Nothing at all. Brexiters will either, as usual, demonstrate their ignorance and claim it is, or wilfully conflate the two to spread mischief. We can walk away from the Court and Convention on Human Rights tomorrow if we want joining Belarus as the only country not signed up. So leaving the EU will not mean walking away from ‘human rights’ issues - that will be separate step we will have to make and there are some in the Brexit camp who wish to do just that. (Note though that you can’t be a member of the EU and not sign up the human rights stuff, but this is not because the institutions are linked rather it’s because it demonstrates you’re a decent sort of place, a lack of human rights generally demonstrating you’re not so decent).

It’s not straightforward though ripping up human rights here as it’s absolutely integral to the devolution settlement for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (NI) as we’ve mentioned many time on here (NI is extremely sensitive as the European Convention is marbled through the Good Friday Agreement). I think it’s quite unlikely that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and NI Assemblies would give legislative consent to this, and so we’re really talking about a Bill of English Rights. Whether there’s any difference between an ‘English’ and a’ human’ right is an interesting point to ponder not least because if there is, we can wonder which current human rights we have those wanting to rip them up think we don’t deserve/need.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

The Radio 4 `More or Less' statistics programme scotched that 29,911 figure that gets so much attention and is applied to so many issues. I think they traced it back to the early 1900s in the US but I can't remember now exactly who first quoted it.

It's noticeable that the referendum `debate' is following a similar pattern to the climate change `debate'. Climate change deniers are often turning up as EU deniers, take for example Lord Lawson. They apply the same tactics and make the same mistakes, ignore the evidence and only believe what suits them.