EU Referendum

[Hacker Khan]

It's complicated. Many non European immigrants seemed to be suggesting that immigration is too high, I guess many European immigrants never had a vote although I believe Commonwealth ones did. The areas you mention tend to have quite a lot of eastern european immigrants working in the hotel and leisure sectors but have fairly low numbers of Asian and Caribbean/Africans. Maybe people in these areas are concerned that their traditional cultures will be threatened by high immigration. Before anyone suggests otherwise I am just trying to answer the question not put forward a case for the reasons.

If you are saying it is fear of immigrants as opposed to the reality, as these areas actually have very low levels of immigration, then we finally agree on something!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...and so I am coming to the conclusion that we are leaving the EU because of the fear of immigration.

Never mind that despite leaving, all existing immigrants (being the cause of the issues the have caused - clearly) will be able to stay and so the issues will remain - and there is no guarantee of any sort that the annual immigrant level will reduce - and so unless government invests significantly in infrastructure the current issues will only get worse.

How any long term economic miracle resulting from Brexit would improve that situation I do not see. Besides - I heard on more than one occasion when challenged on how we require immigration to sustain current levels of economic growth - Brexiteers question the need for continual economic growth.

Got to find a way out of this shambles and make sure we do not leave.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Clearly the immigrant population has been a big feature of the whole piece, but could it be more complex - does the Ilse of Anglesey, North Devon, Ilse of Wight, Cornwall have big immigrant populations? I genuinely don't know. London does and went remain.

The IoW is full of retired Grockles [incommers].......do they count as immigrants.

 

[BubbaP]

...and so I am coming to the conclusion that we are leaving the EU because of the fear of immigration.

I am coming to a different conclusion. Clearly that is one factor, but trying to boil into one convenient sound bite (unfortunately as much main stream media appears to be) is not working for me.
There are areas/people that have experienced volumes of immigration at pace.
There will be people who view it from political/governance viewpoints.
There will be people who feel economically would be better in medium term.

Not debating the rights and wrongs - just that there are many facets here (probably more than listed).

Waverley apparently 41.6% for leave - all through fear?

 

[Hobbit]

I am coming to a different conclusion. Clearly that is one factor, but trying to boil into one convenient sound bite (unfortunately as much main stream media appears to be) is not working for me.
There are areas/people that have experienced volumes of immigration at pace.
There will be people who view it from political/governance viewpoints.
There will be people who feel economically would be better in medium term.

Not debating the rights and wrongs - just that there are many facets here (probably more than listed).

Waverley apparently 41.6% for leave - all through fear?

That's my interpretation too. I don't subscribe the notion that it is only the old and ignorant that have voted out. I know some very bright older people who voted out.

One of them came up with an interesting thought. Is the EU, in its current federal state, the new Russia? A central ruling body that has given itself powers in an undemocratic way?

 

[Hacker Khan]

That's my interpretation too. I don't subscribe the notion that it is only the old and ignorant that have voted out. I know some very bright older people who voted out.

One of them came up with an interesting thought. Is the EU, in its current federal state, the new Russia? A central ruling body that has given itself powers in an undemocratic way?

But then you get back to the old argument of in reality, how much 'power' does the EU have and exercise over us? And we do elect MEPs. And the country is allegedly currently run by a party that got less that 25% of the available vote. And there are parties such as UKIP that had large number of votes but do not have any MPs.

One persons definition of 'democracy' and 'powers' may well be different to anothers. Which I am sure has been debated one or twice on here.

 

[Hobbit]

But then you get back to the old argument of in reality, how much 'power' does the EU have and exercise over us? And we do elect MEPs. And the country is allegedly currently run by a party that got less that 25% of the available vote. And there are parties such as UKIP that had large number of votes but do not have any MPs.

One persons definition of 'democracy' and 'powers' may well be different to anothers. Which I am sure has been debated one or twice on here.

But that's a "shallow" argument for one of "an advanced intellect." [winky smiley]

I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion that its the new Russia, albeit a long way from communism. Whether we elect MEP's, and what difference they make is, as you say, another question. Sure someone posted up that the UK opposed the last 55 laws the EU passed... kinda suggests it doesn't really do what we want. Anyway, that's been done to death.

 

[Hacker Khan]

But that's a "shallow" argument for one of "an advanced intellect." [winky smiley]

I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion that its the new Russia, albeit a long way from communism. Whether we elect MEP's, and what difference they make is, as you say, another question. Sure someone posted up that the UK opposed the last 55 laws the EU passed... kinda suggests it doesn't really do what we want. Anyway, that's been done to death.

I also read that in reality we only objected to 2% of all the EU laws/directives, the vast majority we just adopted with little fuss. Yes we did adopt quite a few (although the exact percentage is hotly debated) of EU regulations, but in a lot of cases it saved us from the process of having to do them ourselves. Some people may see that as us losing our sovereignty, others may see it a practical solution and a small price to pay for access to the single market.

But I am sure both sides can twist use stats to prove their point. As I probably have just done.

 

[ColchesterFC]

I can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted last night that activating Article 50 might require a vote in the HOC. There are obviously more MPs that were in favour of Remain than those for Leave. Would you expect them to vote with their beliefs and in that case overwhelmingly reject leaving or do you think that they should vote in line with how their constituents voted?

For example an MP that supports Remain but represents an area that voted Leave. Should that MP vote Remain or Leave if it came to a vote in the HOC? And obviously vice versa. I can imagine that an MP that voted to Remain despite his constituents voting to Leave would lose a lot of votes at the next election, but I suspect that in the opposite case with an MP voting to Leave when constituents voted to Remain would lose even more votes. Thoughts?

 

[ger147]

I can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted last night that activating Article 50 might require a vote in the HOC. There are obviously more MPs that were in favour of Remain than those for Leave. Would you expect them to vote with their beliefs and in that case overwhelmingly reject leaving or do you think that they should vote in line with how their constituents voted?

For example an MP that supports Remain but represents an area that voted Leave. Should that MP vote Remain or Leave if it came to a vote in the HOC? And obviously vice versa. I can imagine that an MP that voted to Remain despite his constituents voting to Leave would lose a lot of votes at the next election, but I suspect that in the opposite case with an MP voting to Leave when constituents voted to Remain would lose even more votes. Thoughts?

No doubt the vote will be whipped so they will vote as their respective parties tell them to.

 

[Foxholer]

...
One of them came up with an interesting thought. Is the EU, in its current federal state, the new Russia? A central ruling body that has given itself powers in an undemocratic way?

As long as the concept of subsidiarity - as embodied in the Maastricht Treaty - is upheld, then the EU cannot achieve what is apparently the fear stated above! The application of that concept can be challenged by any member state - or even a single person - ultimately in the Court of Justice of the EU!

Here's the 'official' line on this extremely important concept! http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.2.2.pdf

Btw. I don't believe there's a 'universal definition' of '(un)democratic'! Any law passed by a UK government that wasn't specifically referred to in the ruling party's manifesto can be deemed 'undemocratic'! The Swiss have frequent referendums to overcome such issues!

 

[Hacker Khan]

I can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted last night that activating Article 50 might require a vote in the HOC. There are obviously more MPs that were in favour of Remain than those for Leave. Would you expect them to vote with their beliefs and in that case overwhelmingly reject leaving or do you think that they should vote in line with how their constituents voted?

For example an MP that supports Remain but represents an area that voted Leave. Should that MP vote Remain or Leave if it came to a vote in the HOC? And obviously vice versa. I can imagine that an MP that voted to Remain despite his constituents voting to Leave would lose a lot of votes at the next election, but I suspect that in the opposite case with an MP voting to Leave when constituents voted to Remain would lose even more votes. Thoughts?

Pretty sure I read there are about 150 MPs that support leave, the rest don't. As for needing a vote then I think legally we are in uncharted territories here. Some legal brains say you do, some say not. And may be a difference between what is morally right (listen to the result of the referendum) and what is legally right (who knows.....). Bit like penalizing DJ for the ball moving when he did not touch it on silly fast greens and telling him after the round. Legally OK, morally, really?

There is also an argument that parliament is legally bound to do what it thinks is best for the nation. And in this case as the majority of MPs do not think this is best for the nation if the 150 stat is to be believed. I suspect this may well get held up in the courts to be honest. Which if I was being cynical may be a convenient way of whoever is running the country at the time to avoid being seen as the person that triggered article 50, as they could blame the courts decision. They were only following legal instructions. Assuming it doesn't go all the way to the EU court. As that would be funny.

 

[Foxholer]

I can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted last night that activating Article 50 might require a vote in the HOC. There are obviously more MPs that were in favour of Remain than those for Leave. Would you expect them to vote with their beliefs and in that case overwhelmingly reject leaving or do you think that they should vote in line with how their constituents voted?

For example an MP that supports Remain but represents an area that voted Leave. Should that MP vote Remain or Leave if it came to a vote in the HOC? And obviously vice versa. I can imagine that an MP that voted to Remain despite his constituents voting to Leave would lose a lot of votes at the next election, but I suspect that in the opposite case with an MP voting to Leave when constituents voted to Remain would lose even more votes. Thoughts?

The issue is whether simply activating Article 50 (notification of intention to leave) requires a vote or whether the consequences of applying A50 do. Certainly, if/when UK leaves, then the 1972 European Communities Act would need to be repealed, but that needn't happen immediately!

 

[Pro Zach]

Change may or may not have been needed but the change we have voted for is, IMO, completely the wrong direction of travel.

I do think we'll be worse off economically, but this vote was never about the economics for me. It was about being an outward looking, good global citizen for the benefit of all mankind. Instead we have turned in on ourselves, stuck two fingers up at our friends and neighbours with whom we should be working for a better future and then essentially descended into farce as two spoiled public schoolboys trash the country as a side effect of their long running petty rivalry. Oh and then both of them run away to let others pick up the mess.

As a country, we are a disgrace and I am ashamed and embarrassed by the whole sorry mess.

The UK is not insular or inward looking. We trade, have immigration, emigration and cooperation with the world. Leaving the EU is not sticking two fingers up at our continental neighbours. There is no evidence that the UK doesn't want to trade, cooperate, have emigration and immigration with the countries of Europe.

The problem is not the UK. The problem is the EU.

The EU does not allow free trade. It is very unlikely to allow an independent UK to trade freely with European countries. They will insist we pay a fee for the privilege of trading with other European countries... that's not us doing that They will restrict access to their union... that's not us doing that. Free movement of people is their ridiculous trading restriction... not ours. It is not the UK that is inward looking or insular, it is the EU.

Do you think the trade deal the EU is trying to make with the USA is going to include them adopting EU laws and the free movement of people?

The reason they can't give us the same deal as the USA is that it will be obvious that as a country you are better off not in the EU.

The reason European countries are EU members is because the EU makes it almost impossible not to be. The EU is not good for Europe or the rest of the world. It is just a hideous organisation that exists because it exists. It's existence relies on people believing it is necessary and it isn't. If it didn't exist we would simply deal with individual countries as we do with the rest of the world. It is authoritarian, it dictates social practice, it is intolerant of different practices and you can't leave with impunity. It is a fascist cartel.

All the argument is about whether the UK can survive as an independent nation. It is obvious it could if the EU didn't exist. The EU is the only thing that makes it difficult. They will make it difficult because their own meaningless existence depends on it. Do Germany want to sell us cars? Do you think they would like free trade with us? Do you think they would insist on free movement of people between our countries for this? I think all European countries would want to trade with us without any suggestion of sharing social policies or practices. The reason they can't is because the fascist cartel dictates that they can't.

The UK should leave and then state it will trade freely with EU countries. Any deal they offer that includes their social polices should be rejected. Then the countries of Europe might see that the EU does not work in their best interest. Insisting we allow free movement of people to trade with European countries is not in the best interest of the individual countries. We should take the huge risk to get rid of the EU.

The EU is not a socialist organisation. It has some very rich countries and some very poor countries. There is nothing socialist about that. The free movement of people simply allows rich countries to abuse the disadvantaged. The UK has millions of foreign people living on the poverty line in slums and ghettos of our cities. We are not helping these people, we are exploiting them. Taking fit and skilled people from eastern European countries isn't helping their countries, it's helping ours. These people aren't here because they wanted to leave their home land to live in slums and be racially abused. They are here because they have no choice. And we happily exploit their situation.

This has helped make the UK wealthy but thankfully it has to stop. Mass immigration has turned normally liberal but patriotic Brits into racists. Continuing this policy will result in political and civil unrest and eventually civil war. We must either become less wealthy or find another way to create wealth.

 

[SocketRocket]

The UK is not insular or inward looking. We trade, have immigration, emigration and cooperation with the world. Leaving the EU is not sticking two fingers up at our continental neighbours. There is no evidence that the UK doesn't want to trade, cooperate, have emigration and immigration with the countries of Europe.

The problem is not the UK. The problem is the EU.

The EU does not allow free trade. It is very unlikely to allow an independent UK to trade freely with European countries. They will insist we pay a fee for the privilege of trading with other European countries... that's not us doing that They will restrict access to their union... that's not us doing that. Free movement of people is their ridiculous trading restriction... not ours. It is not the UK that is inward looking or insular, it is the EU.

Do you think the trade deal the EU is trying to make with the USA is going to include them adopting EU laws and the free movement of people?

The reason they can't give us the same deal as the USA is that it will be obvious that as a country you are better off not in the EU.

The reason European countries are EU members is because the EU makes it almost impossible not to be. The EU is not good for Europe or the rest of the world. It is just a hideous organisation that exists because it exists. It's existence relies on people believing it is necessary and it isn't. If it didn't exist we would simply deal with individual countries as we do with the rest of the world. It is authoritarian, it dictates social practice, it is intolerant of different practices and you can't leave with impunity. It is a fascist cartel.

All the argument is about whether the UK can survive as an independent nation. It is obvious it could if the EU didn't exist. The EU is the only thing that makes it difficult. They will make it difficult because their own meaningless existence depends on it. Do Germany want to sell us cars? Do you think they would like free trade with us? Do you think they would insist on free movement of people between our countries for this? I think all European countries would want to trade with us without any suggestion of sharing social policies or practices. The reason they can't is because the fascist cartel dictates that they can't.

The UK should leave and then state it will trade freely with EU countries. Any deal they offer that includes their social polices should be rejected. Then the countries of Europe might see that the EU does not work in their best interest. Insisting we allow free movement of people to trade with European countries is not in the best interest of the individual countries. We should take the huge risk to get rid of the EU.

The EU is not a socialist organisation. It has some very rich countries and some very poor countries. There is nothing socialist about that. The free movement of people simply allows rich countries to abuse the disadvantaged. The UK has millions of foreign people living on the poverty line in slums and ghettos of our cities. We are not helping these people, we are exploiting them. Taking fit and skilled people from eastern European countries isn't helping their countries, it's helping ours. These people aren't here because they wanted to leave their home land to live in slums and be racially abused. They are here because they have no choice. And we happily exploit their situation.

This has helped make the UK wealthy but thankfully it has to stop. Mass immigration has turned normally liberal but patriotic Brits into racists. Continuing this policy will result in political and civil unrest and eventually civil war. We must either become less wealthy or find another way to create wealth.

A fantastic post.

 

[Fish]

The UK is not insular or inward looking. We trade, have immigration, emigration and cooperation with the world. Leaving the EU is not sticking two fingers up at our continental neighbours. There is no evidence that the UK doesn't want to trade, cooperate, have emigration and immigration with the countries of Europe.

The problem is not the UK. The problem is the EU.

The EU does not allow free trade. It is very unlikely to allow an independent UK to trade freely with European countries. They will insist we pay a fee for the privilege of trading with other European countries... that's not us doing that They will restrict access to their union... that's not us doing that. Free movement of people is their ridiculous trading restriction... not ours. It is not the UK that is inward looking or insular, it is the EU.

Do you think the trade deal the EU is trying to make with the USA is going to include them adopting EU laws and the free movement of people?

The reason they can't give us the same deal as the USA is that it will be obvious that as a country you are better off not in the EU.

The reason European countries are EU members is because the EU makes it almost impossible not to be. The EU is not good for Europe or the rest of the world. It is just a hideous organisation that exists because it exists. It's existence relies on people believing it is necessary and it isn't. If it didn't exist we would simply deal with individual countries as we do with the rest of the world. It is authoritarian, it dictates social practice, it is intolerant of different practices and you can't leave with impunity. It is a fascist cartel.

All the argument is about whether the UK can survive as an independent nation. It is obvious it could if the EU didn't exist. The EU is the only thing that makes it difficult. They will make it difficult because their own meaningless existence depends on it. Do Germany want to sell us cars? Do you think they would like free trade with us? Do you think they would insist on free movement of people between our countries for this? I think all European countries would want to trade with us without any suggestion of sharing social policies or practices. The reason they can't is because the fascist cartel dictates that they can't.

The UK should leave and then state it will trade freely with EU countries. Any deal they offer that includes their social polices should be rejected. Then the countries of Europe might see that the EU does not work in their best interest. Insisting we allow free movement of people to trade with European countries is not in the best interest of the individual countries. We should take the huge risk to get rid of the EU.

The EU is not a socialist organisation. It has some very rich countries and some very poor countries. There is nothing socialist about that. The free movement of people simply allows rich countries to abuse the disadvantaged. The UK has millions of foreign people living on the poverty line in slums and ghettos of our cities. We are not helping these people, we are exploiting them. Taking fit and skilled people from eastern European countries isn't helping their countries, it's helping ours. These people aren't here because they wanted to leave their home land to live in slums and be racially abused. They are here because they have no choice. And we happily exploit their situation.

This has helped make the UK wealthy but thankfully it has to stop. Mass immigration has turned normally liberal but patriotic Brits into racists. Continuing this policy will result in political and civil unrest and eventually civil war. We must either become less wealthy or find another way to create wealth.

👍 Great post Sir

 

[bluewolf]

And if the population decides not to accept becoming less wealthy or cannot agree a new way to create wealth?

I agree that our current system is unworkable in the long term. I've been saying that exact thing for 2 years. We either learn to live with long lasting contraction of our markets or we adopt a new social and economic structure that creates wealth in equitable and responsible way. Or, we carry on as before and wait for someone else to lead the way.

 

[SocketRocket]

If you are saying it is fear of immigrants as opposed to the reality, as these areas actually have very low levels of immigration, then we finally agree on something!

Fear is the wrong word, concern is better. I don't think people are generally frightened of immigrants. People tend to have a number of issues appertaining to immigration, some are concerning numbers and how this affects their access to services, some are to do with wages and how their pay has been depressed especially in the lower pay bands, some is to do with the effects of multiple cultures in their communities and how their diversity; rather than being something they should celebrate; creates a lack of social cohesion and a division, that division cannot always be blamed on the indigenous community either. Immigration is a bit like eating sugar, we need an amount of it to be healthy, but a lot of it over a short period is bad for us and has undesirable side effects.

 

[SocketRocket]

And if the population decides not to accept becoming less wealthy or cannot agree a new way to create wealth?

I agree that our current system is unworkable in the long term. I've been saying that exact thing for 2 years. We either learn to live with long lasting contraction of our markets or we adopt a new social and economic structure that creates wealth in equitable and responsible way. Or, we carry on as before and wait for someone else to lead the way.

The population has adopted a view they are entitled to be wealthy and thats a myth whether we are in the EU or not. Greece is a very good example of this.

 

[bluewolf]

The population has adopted a view they are entitled to be wealthy and thats a myth whether we are in the EU or not. Greece is a very good example of this.

We have developed a "throwaway" culture. We dispose of perfectly workable goods, in a quest to stay relevant and significant. We display our wealth like a badge of honour, little caring that it is built on exploitation of the third world. This culture has been force fed to us by a political elite, financed by big business, all in the name of continuing growth. Any attempt to move away from that model will be met with significant resistance.

* All typed on an iPhone, whilst watching the cricket on Sky, on a large flat screen Sony TV!!!!