[petejh]

Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?

Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?


I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.

[Duma]

Ok, substitute the narrow definition of 'experiencing greater economic growth' for 'doing better'. And the point really is, given all the problems these countries face, WTF is wrong with Europe that the economy here is growing more slowly?

They start from being much poorer, and they treat their workforces much worse. 

[erm]

Ok, substitute the narrow definition of 'experiencing greater economic growth' for 'doing better'. And the point really is, given all the problems these countries face, WTF is wrong with Europe that the economy here is growing more slowly?

Our political leaders, here and in the rest of the EU, have broadly been captured by the idea that expansionary austerity is even possible. This economic policy is considered a failure by a growing majority of economists (but they're an "elite" and have been wrong before - so ignore them).

Couple this with the internal political difficulty in a place like Germany, where the standard of living, on average, increased hugely after reunification but hasn't matched the strong growth of the last 20 years or so (Germany has in effect suppressed wages to maintain competetiveness).

The creditor nations should be saying "we lent the Greeks (and others) money we should not have and we will have to accept responsibility for that".

From this would follow debt haircuts/forgiveness in the PIIGS, that would allow their economies to start growing properly again and bring the Eurozone into a better position and EU with it. The current state of affairs is now a product of selling the difficult proposition that the savers will have to suffer to help the borrowers, in order to get things moving again for all of us.

[Nigel]

I told myself I’d keep an open mind on this until the final straight, and read a lot of the arguments, which I have tried to do. The upshot is that surprisingly I find myself less bothered about which way to vote or what the result will be. As Dave has expressed, we are being asked to decide on membership of the EU purely so that David Cameron can attempt to put a lid on both internal conservative party divisions and the rise of UKIP stealing votes from the right. Let’s face it this is a referendum he never thought he’d have to call - he thought the expected hung parliament at the last election would lead to another coalition, so he could revert to type, duck it, and blame the Lib Dems. This referendum wasn’t meant to happen and the politicians are like rabbits in the headlights. Talk about hoist by your own petard. To sum up my exasperation at the campaign – basically no-one has anything good to say about our membership of the EU. No-one has a vision, because the question wasn’t meant to be asked and caught everyone on the hop. So we have the sorry sight of a naturally Eurosceptic PM with his bullshit “renegotiated membership” deal (where is mention of that now pray-tell?) backing remaining in an EU which he hates on the basis that things will be worse if we leave. Basically “things are shit now, but they will be shitter if we leave”. Inspirational. However, at least they can prove their case for staying in very easily – "things are shit now and if we keep the status quo they’ll be just as shit tomorrow". That at least is a fact you can hang your hat on.

The other side of the campaign seems to think that things are shit now but they will be better if we leave. Its cloud cuckoo land stuff, but on that basis its not hard to see why it appeals to many in the electorate who are disaffected. Lets face it most people won’t be voting for the question on the paper, they will project their own question and answer that. And if they are pissed off with their situation at the moment then they are hardly going to vote for the status quo are they? They will vote leave to lash out at a political system that has always failed them. They won’t consider arguments in depth, they’ll just believe some mendacious statement from someone like Farage or Gove and run with that. But hey that’s democracy.

I know the above sounds like an argument against referenda, but it isn’t. The concept of putting it to the people is sound, but I think in this case the principle is undermined by the lack of intent of any of the parties. Cameron’s heart isn’t in it. Corbyn’s heart isn’t in it. Johnson couldn’t care less apart from getting what’s best for him. Farage at least has been consistent (a lunatic, granted, but a consistent one). If its genuinely such a fucking nightmare leaving then don’t put the chance of that happening on the table just so can can shut up your backbenches, its pure negligence. If you are still going to put it on the table then make damn sure you can carry the demos along with you. If there’s an overwhelmingly positive message for remaining in floating about out there then clearly a great many people haven’t heard it as all the polls have Leave ahead. For christ’s sake they haven’t even managed to be clever enough to pay off the Sun to back remain! The door is therefore left open for a protest vote from a lot of people who feel fucked over from years of UK-mandated austerity. Leaving the EU isn’t the answer but if that happens its because that’s the question we are being asked. And that’s because of a failure of UK politics, not the EU.

Basically whatever the result it’s the UK that needs reform, not the EU.

[Oldmanmatt]

There is also still the not so minor point, that regardless of the outcome of the referendum; an act of Parliament is required to begin/give the article 50 notice (to the EU).
Some estimates put the split of parliamentarians opinions as high as 97-3% for remain. Even after a Tory party coup, with a Boris at the helm, that estimate doesn't shift much.
I have read much speculation (it's ok I won't link Pete) that the Government will begin the protracted process of passing that Bill (in the event of a leave win), which may take several months and then return to a further referendum prior to issuing the Article 50 notice (two year notice).
By the time they are ready, or IF. they can get the Bill through; there should be a much clearer picture of the consequences.

The referendum is advisory, it does not mean the Government will follow it's outcome. I think that must be a function of the size of the majority and the turnout.
Say a 51/49 split on less than 60% turn out, might be insufficient to force Parliament to follow the result.

Might be an interesting can of worms...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

Well none of the U.K. Papers have dared headline the link between The murder of Jo Cox and Brexit.

But papers across Europe make the link no one here dare speak..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2016/jun/17/european-newspaper-front-pages-on-jo-cox-death-in-pictures

[tomtom]

Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?

Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?


I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.

National identity is not important to me (am I unusual?).

I love the landscape, Geography, sense of humour, and usual tolerance of the U.K. (I even like the weather). Or is this a national identity? There in lies an interesting question.

We live in a far broader world than we did even 20 years ago... This leads to cultures, language, populations diffusing around the world far more than they ever had. I don't see nostalgia or hankering back for how things were as being a good or progressive force for the world... Or the UK.

Anyway - Democracy is far more like an algorithm or procedure/method than dictatorship... Is that your preferred form of governance?

(Note the smiley..)

[Oldmanmatt]

Well none of the U.K. Papers have dared headline the link between The murder of Jo Cox and Brexit.

But papers across Europe make the link no one here dare speak..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2016/jun/17/european-newspaper-front-pages-on-jo-cox-death-in-pictures

My Arab FB friends are volubly complaining that it hasn't been branded "Terrorism"...

(I don't think it is. If Britains Worst had claimed responsibility and lauded their "Fighter", then you could call it that. But a well documented man with serious mental health issues? No).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GraemeA]

If a Muslim with well documented serious mental health problems killed someone whilst yelling Allah Akbar it would most certainly be branded as religious terrorism. Why not this guy, he seems to have had links to Neo Nazi groups in the past and supposedly yelled something political during the murder.

I do not see the difference.

(Edited for spelling)

[tomtom]

If you Stoke the fire enough...

[Oldmanmatt]

If a Muslim with well documented serious mental health problems killed someone whilst yelling Allah Akbar it would most certainly be branded as religious terrorism. Why not this guy, he seems to have had links to Neo Nazi groups in the past and supposedly yelled something political during the murder.

I do not see the difference.

(Edited for spelling)

I don't doubt it, not for a second.

It doesn't make it correct. I'm fairly sure that many solo acts are not "terrorism" per se (Orlando? Possibly, remains to be seen) even though some group might claim it.

If the weapons/orders/training turn out to have come from somewhere other than his own head ( the idiot here or the one in Orlando), then it's terrorism; otherwise it's delusional behaviour by an individual. That, he could have equally carried out on behalf of the Radical Divine Pink Unicorns of Justice Party...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nigel]

“Terrorism” is one of the most abused words in the English language. I think that technically it means “the harmful targeting of a civilian population for the purpose of achieving political ends”. Sorry if that’s a bit loose but I can’t check it right now. Essentially its an extension of the old dictum “war is diplomacy by other means” applied to non-state actors. It has been totally debauched though so that now the common understanding is I’m afraid “bad things brown people do”. As such it makes a non-sequitur of most government policy. “We can’t negotiate with terrorists” – unless they’re Irish, then we can, even the Queen can have tea with them. “Isis are a death cult” – well in that case they’re nihilists, not terrorists. However I don’t know many nihilists with their own start-up state. That’s going slightly off the point though. The fact is that most far-right murders are carried out by, according to the press / government - “crazed loners”. They aren’t termed terrorists because they are white and it would upset the narrative. And it is easily upset as until Orlando the far right were knocking off more people in the US than radical Islam (if you take out 9/11). But hang on if they didn’t have a political agenda then they wouldn’t be described as far-right would they? Of course its terrorism, being in a club of one and not a proscribed “terrorist organisation” does not to my mind nullify this. If they do happen to be mentally disturbed as is often the case and this is the real reason then fair enough, but in that case apply it across the board – was the Orlando shooter a jihadist or mental? If the former then he certainly wasn’t “in Isis” as he claimed (as a clean shaven drinking probably gay man with no evidence of contact with them), he self-radicalised, probably in just the same way as the Jo Cox suspect will turn out to have done but in a neo-Nazi direction. Its just that ISIS are happy to take the credit whereas Britain First aren’t. I think OMM’s Arab friends probably have a point…

[Oldmanmatt]

Mind you there's this...
(Copy and paste, sorry for any errors)

"Amongst speculation about the motives behind the tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, proof of the identified assailant Thomas Mair’s links to international far-right groups has emerged.

Here are the documents that have surfaced regarding Mair’s history of involvement with the far-right US National Alliance and South Africa’s SA Patriots.

The US Southern Poverty Law Centre has sourced images of receipts from National Vanguard Books, publisher of the US neo-nazi group the National Alliance (NA), billed to Thomas Mair at his address in Yorkshire. (National Vanguard Books is not to be confused with the National Vanguard, a splinter group of the NA formed in 2005 who took their name from the NA magazine and publisher.)

The first of the receipts, from 13th May 1999, lists several items – one being the Improvised Munitions Handbook which outlines how to make explosives, and a homemade gun. It is alleged that Mair used a gun that “looked homemade” in the shooting.

improvised munitions handbook homemade gun Thomas Mair

Also on that 1999 receipt are other books about explosives, and a copy of ‘Ich Kämpfe’ (in English: ‘I fight’) , the 1942 Nazi pamphlet issued to all new party recruits about their ‘successes’, written by Goebbels and others.

thomas mair 1999 receipt national vanguard books


 
Two more receipts, from 2003, show subscriptions to the National Vanguard and Free Speech magazines.



It has also been pointed out that Mair had links to the South African pro-apartheid group White Rhino Club, via subscription to their magazine S. A. Patriot. The publication was later re-launched in the UK as S. A. Patriot-in-Exile. In the lead-up to the re-launch the publication publicly thanked Mair as one of their “earliest subscribers and supporters.”

While admitting, yet downplaying, this link the editor of today’s S. A. Patriot-in-Exile, A. D. Harvey, has released a statement condemning the attack. He claims that Mair’s subscription in the mid-1980s was brief, with Mair receiving only a few editions and never renewing his subscription. Harvey describes the public mention of Mair as one of several ‘staged events’ to drum up support for the re-launch.

sa statement

These documents suggest that Mair engaged with and was exposed to long-standing influence from far-right ideas from at least the mid-80s to the mid-2000s.

Of the various speculations surrounding his mental health and the proximity to the referendum the motive of political opposition to Cox’s broadly inclusive stance is one that currently appears far clearer."




 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Can someone pro Brexit give me a reason for leaving that is not based on nostalgia or racism?

Aren't these two things what creates a strong sense of national identity and pride?


I get the feeling you'd rather be ruled over by an algorithm if it was efficient and logical.

National identity is not important to me (am I unusual?).

It isn't to me. But to understand why a lot of people feel the way they do about issues such as the EU you need to accept that vague notions like national identity are really fucking important.
The majority of the population aren't concerned with trying to be especially cultured, academic, or intellectual, progressive etc. etc. I doubt the population of this forum is an accurate representation of the population in general but perhaps I'm being a bit cynical.

[Oldmanmatt]

Surely comparing the UK with the US is a bit like comparing Arkwrights corner shop with Wallmart?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry Dense/Pete, but this opinion piece is worth reading. For the interested, of course:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/day-after-brexit-what-happens-if-we-vote-leave-eu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fried]

I'd like to see some reliable information about what will happen to all the hundreds of thousand of expats living and working in Europe. I hear lots of blind assumptions that someone will work something out at some point in time. Shit, I might even have to marry my wife and become French.

[petejh]

Sorry Dense/Pete, but this opinion piece is worth reading. For the interested, of course:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/day-after-brexit-what-happens-if-we-vote-leave-eu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read that at work this morning and this caught my eye:
The expectation at the Bank is that a Leave vote would trigger a sharp decline in the value of sterling and a period of heightened inflation. In that case, the expectation is that the Bank would have to increase the basic rate of interest, which has been held at 0.5 per cent for seven years.


That would trigger an immediate crisis in Britain’s housing market – several banks estimate that about one-third of buy-to-let landlords would be unable to pay their mortgages in the event of a 2 per cent rate rise. According to officials at the Bank of England, the true figure may well be higher, as many buy-to-let landlords have mortgages with multiple banks. Renters would face a toxic cocktail of rent rises, banks that were unwilling to lend even as house prices dropped, and homeowners stuck with mortgages greater than the equity in their homes, unwilling and unable to sell up – even if buyers could be found.

So I'll finally start getting a decent return on my savings, the housing market bubble will face a correction, and some of the BTL landlords will be shaken out. Happy days.

[Oldmanmatt]

Anyone remember that 1990 "correction"?
Took 10 years before my house was worth what I paid for it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy W]

I'd like to see some reliable information about what will happen to all the hundreds of thousand of expats living and working in Europe. I hear lots of blind assumptions that someone will work something out at some point in time. Shit, I might even have to marry my wife and become French.

I've just moved to France, shit I need to find a wife

[lagerstarfish]

become French.

an excellent plan

(I would never cut it as a German)

[shark]

The expectation at the Bank is that a Leave vote would trigger a sharp decline in the value of sterling and a period of heightened inflation. In that case, the expectation is that the Bank would have to increase the basic rate of interest, which has been held at 0.5 per cent for seven years.

This is one of the bollocks scare myths that is being bandied around. If the economy is going to adversely by leaving then raising interest rates will make it worse. Why would the bank of england do that? The Remain campaigners cant have it both ways. 

[Duma]

??

to control inflation and support the currency?

[shark]

??

to control inflation and support the currency?

Yes - there would both a push and a pull but given their form over the last 8 years of taking the bigger picture my view is that unless absolutely forced to by international markets they will keep the base rate as low as possible especially given the context of a globally low inflation/ low interest rates   

In the case of Brexit, as Carney and his colleagues made clear, the decision would be more balanced. The slump in sterling and the consequent rise in inflation would argue for higher rates, while the hit to growth would make the case for a cut. A cut would not do much – I am pretty sure the Bank will not want to follow other central banks and opt for negative rates, so from 0.5% to zero would be as far as it goes. A half-point cut in interest rates would not do much to offset a growth shock. As the governor said, there is only so much that monetary policy can do.

Which way would it go? The Bank is not saying. If it thought the rise in inflation resulting from Brexit was temporary, then it could “look through” it, as it has done before, and cut to try and keep growth going. If, on the other hand, a post-Brexit slump in sterling turned into a rout, the Bank might have no option but to raise rates to prop it up.

[tomtom]

At last some sensible arguments about how migration has suppressed wages for low paid jobs and led to a growth in the rich-poor divide and how this also impacts the rental market. Not saying I agree - but something non emotionally argued....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/jun/18/eu-vote-brexit-working-people-rents-wages