Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

[datalol-jack]

Got to ask but why is he a clown? and may I ask if you're a student or full time worker?

Tim's a wonderful example of a self-styled mover and shaker of the Tory party, with a circus of values and frequent, almost arbitrary u-torns in his ideology. He was quickly disabused of both his impression of relevance and influence, backed two losing horses in the Tory leadership stakes, and wrote some stuff, which is his chief claim to fame; and even that ain't that stellar. So he did what all media hacks do -- he made some drama to hopefully get to talk a bit more not much about anything in particular. You know staying in the limelight, living for the weekend.

I've been an ex-student for years now. Doing odd things, saving money up for postgrad. Don't really see how it bears any relevance to the EU referendum debate, though.

 

[Tunney]

Then there is just the view held by the population? Moving countries really cross people's minds? At least not on the scale like it exists today?

The population of Ireland in 1840 was around 8.5 million. It's now around 4.5 million and 41 million Americans claim Irish descent.

Moving countries was definitely on people's minds pre-1900 - especially in times of crisis.

 

[balky12]

The UK didn't have any immigration controls until around 1905 and even then they were pretty liberal.

Trains were transcontinental, the Orient Express being the most famous and opening in 1883. Getting from London to Moscow was not unusual and you could then jump on the trans siberian railway and get all across Asia.

OcUk is educational.

How do you factor in businesses which are able to survive because of these migrants?

Not all businesses can afford to pay any more than they already do, regardless of immigration. If the peoples personal standard of minimal pay goes above what small businesses can afford to pay people, would they not struggle to fill roles and fail eventually, increasing employment in the long run and reducing what is taken in taxes as well as making the government pay out more to those people who are put out of work due to these failed businesses?

I am not exactly pro-eu but saying it is as simple as 'immigrants drive down wages' is pretty herp derp when talking about the economic effect of immigration

Why I ended my post how I did. I am aware anything we say on here is over simplifying a complex issue. Whichever side of the argument you are for.

I was merely jumping in to a discussion between two people involving anecdotal evidence, with someone attempting to refute the point. I merely said that surely, in some work sectors, this has to be happening.

Why I am not against immigration. NHS wouldn't exist without migration. Just think the idea of free movement for whoever, whenever, wherever is not a great idea.

 

[datalol-jack]

The United States has loads of space it's population density is (according to wiki) 182 out of 244 territories. Whole areas of the US are empty it's baffling why they have such a strict immigration policy.

Even so, they do have a sort of multicultural lottery system at the numbers people here might find approaching apocalyptic. 55,000 odd visas just to increase diversity, on top of other immigration, it's even called Diversity Immigrant Visa.

 

[Zethor]

I didn't make the distinction between right and wrong decisions. I refered to rational vs emotional ones. Rational decisions can be wrong and they often are but they are much more likely to be right than emotional decisions.

 

[izzop]

No but shipping through cruise liners and extensive rail networks did - as I mentioned. The US had a pretty open door policy up until 1933 when the great depression influenced policy.

The world wasn't all that different - certainly air travel isn't a game changer when people could travel pretty much anywhere in the world, albeit a bit slower.

The world is different, in a lot of ways.

Firstly it's population, it only reached 2bn in 1927, however less than 90 years later it increased to 7.4bn.

We're willing to travel more and have more opportunities to do so, be that for leisure or commuting to work. In 1900, what was the average distance people would travel to work, certainly only a fraction of the distance traveled today.

Also, people are more aware of the world we now live in and therefore the appeal to move to places that appear to offer more than where they currently live are greater.

 

[datalol-jack]

Pretty sure cruise liners were post-1900? Yet still, probably only affordable by the rich? Were trains inter-continental?

Then there is just the view held by the population? Moving countries really cross people's minds? At least not on the scale like it exists today?

Even the so called 'mass migrations' aren't really a new thing driven by pesky transnational bureaucrats, or grand conspiracies. People traded and flowed with trade just fine without WiFi and Facebook. There always existed factors which would make going down with the ship on whatever patriotic grounds untenable. As an example, Irish Famine migrants loved their country and culture... they didn't want to starve to death for monarch and Empire. They moved. The role of place in their mythology was replaced by a more modern 'nation is the people, wherever the people may be'. Indeed place is becoming interchangeable for us today, provided we can still form social networks and seek out our ambitions. Though 'feeling in my waters' types won't be convinced either way.

Nonetheless: 'Liberty, equality, fraternity' is a far more attractive notion than 'A place for every man, and every man in his place.'; sadly the lower social grades are always the last to let go of the latter -- handling a world without absolute certainties requires, you guessed it, time, education and money. But to this end, contemporary policies of both the right and the left have been broadly within the theme of attempting to grow the middle classes to benefit the lot of whatever region they are in. Sometimes it worked, sometimes simple solutions lead to bad outcomes. The wheel turns. I choose to ride it.

And the nimby camp has almost always symmetrically emerged in history to 'safeguard' the sovereign, 'native' advantage -- whatever that is (how genetic lottery and accidents of birth make one superior at anything for any purpose is very much in doubt, especially post-world war); a principle that was then promptly ignored a) in war b) colonization c) gunboat diplomacy d) regional development e) you could go on at the hypocrisy forever. So that's why when I look at the EU, warts and all, I think 'damn, we are finally getting somewhere'. Talking instead of killing makes the whole of Europe better, imho. War-hawks and armchair generals may disagree, but two fingers to them, frankly.

If I had to settle for a slogan it'd be: Ever onwards; humanity before nation.

 

[datalol-jack]

The world is different, in a lot of ways.

Firstly it's population, it only reached 2bn in 1927, however less than 90 years later it increased to 7.4bn.

We're willing to travel more and have more opportunities to do so, be that for leisure or commuting to work. In 1900, what was the average distance people would travel to work, certainly only a fraction of the distance traveled today.

Also, people are more aware of the world we now live in and therefore the appeal to move to places that appear to offer more than where they currently live are greater.

Assumed causes aren't the same as evidence of cause, izzop. Again, do move on from 'I feel it's right'.

 

[Trifid]

I didn't make the distinction between right and wrong decisions. I refered to rational vs emotional ones. Rational decisions can be wrong and they often are but they are much more likely to be right than emotional decisions.

You can ration your views on the EU many ways. I do agree, economically, as a country, we are better in. However politically (for us) out is the rational decision.


Cameron looks dreadful this afternoon.

 

[datalol-jack]

You can ration your views on the EU many ways. I do agree, economically, as a country, we are better in. However politically (for us) out is the rational decision.


Cameron looks dreadful this afternoon.

Yeah, none of them caught that much sleep, judging from the Twittersphere.

 

[datalol-jack]

However politically (for us) out is the rational decision

How so? Do tell me of your plan to get both more influence in the world and greater impact of our home decisions on the markets, from the outside of the bloc. Do you bank on us becoming a US state, by any chance?

You want to magic more democracy, prosperity and social justice in the independent UK by wishful thinking alone? How jumping into a pit of total uncertainty makes this any more of an attractive option politically as well as economically remains to be demonstrated, even in principle.

 

[scorza]

How so? Do tell me of your plan to get both more influence in the world and greater impact of our home decisions on the markets, from the outside of the bloc. Do you bank on us becoming a US state, by any chance?

When don't seem to have much influence when the EU negotiates on our behalf at the moment. At least if we're out of the EU then British officials won't be asked to leave the room when the business starts.

You want to magic more democracy, prosperity and social justice in the independent UK by wishful thinking alone? How jumping into a pit of total uncertainty makes this any more of an attractive option politically as well as economically remains to be demonstrated, even in principle.

We did very well before the EU, and I daresay we will again. I much prefer our system of democracy - that's worked for hundreds of years to what the EU has, where the executive is unelected and appointed based on appeasing all member states rather than who is best for the job. Britain's future is more uncertain inside the EU than outside it - we know that "ever closer union" is a means to an end, but we don't know the timetable. When for example will the EU require our armed forces to disband and be subsumed into the EU army? What about the Monarchy? We can't have two heads of state so presumably at some point it'll have to be abolished.

 

[Trifid]

How so? Do tell me of your plan to get both more influence in the world and greater impact of our home decisions on the markets, from the outside of the bloc. Do you bank on us becoming a US state, by any chance?

You want to magic more democracy, prosperity and social justice in the independent UK by wishful thinking alone? How jumping into a pit of total uncertainty makes this any more of an attractive option politically as well as economically remains to be demonstrated, even in principle.

Could you really not have managed to fit that on one post?


Anyway, I meant domestically but as you ask about internationally... The EU wants to be seen as one body, which means removing our own international representation. We have 1/28th of a say in the EU (which is often at odds with the rest of the EU, comparatively with other members) which is compared to the whole say of the UK which is the 5th largest economy, an important member of NATO and on the UN Security Council. The UK has a lot of say on its own, in the EU, not so much.

 

[Mr Jack]

I much prefer our system of democracy - that's worked for hundreds of years....

You seem rather confused about how long the UK has had things for. This isn't the first time you've made wildly wrong claims about how old our systems are.

The UK's current model of elections for parliament dates back less than a hundred years.

... to what the EU has, where the executive is unelected...

And you don't even see to know how our system works either. Our executive is also unelected and appointed by an elected parliament.

 

[datalol-jack]

Apparently Gove has flown the nest; but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't he about as popular as Clegg at a student party? Will Boris commit now too?

When don't seem to have much influence when the EU negotiates on our behalf at the moment. At least if we're out of the EU then British officials won't be asked to leave the room when the business starts.


We did very well before the EU, and I daresay we will again. I much prefer our system of democracy - that's worked for hundreds of years to what the EU has, where the executive is unelected and appointed based on appeasing all member states rather than who is best for the job. Britain's future is more uncertain inside the EU than outside it - we know that "ever closer union" is a means to an end, but we don't know the timetable. When for example will the EU require our armed forces to disband and be subsumed into the EU army? What about the Monarchy? We can't have two heads of state so presumably at some point it'll have to be abolished.

Looking at historic recessions, depressions and geopolitical disasters, their cyclical frequency and outcome; I beg to differ. Oh dear... But let's roll, granting you your conspiracy theory, how's an actual plan more uncertain than no plan at all, and just vague ravings about being more like country 'X'?

 

[eatcustard]

Great news

The PM has managed to get voting on the Eurovision song contest altered

 

[Avenged7Fold]

'Cos taking back Britain!'

 

[datalol-jack]

Could you really not have managed to fit that on one post?


Anyway, I meant domestically but as you ask about internationally... The EU wants to be seen as one body, which means removing our own international representation. We have 1/28th of a say in the EU (which is often at odds with the rest of the EU, comparatively with other members) which is compared to the whole say of the UK which is the 5th largest economy, an important member of NATO and on the UN Security Council. The UK has a lot of say on its own, in the EU, not so much.

Really, you want to reduce it to 1/190th of a voice, without a guarantee of so much as being heard, and no plan of action? Went to any world summits lately? Climate change panels? Chatted with Monsieur Putin on the phone lately? And that's just kid's play to start with. We went into the bloc for a reason; relying on the NATO/UNSC stick isn't as good a 'gunboat-lite' approach as you think, especially if you can't or won't face direct conflict on a massive scale for minor gains. It has its uses but won't replace the other geopolitical and economic advantages the EU brings. Even the generals in charge think so, and are baffled by us wanting to scupper NATO+EU cooperation on the matter. I mean, you do realise that both your NATO and security chair is predicate on your ability to keep up with security contributions, regardless of what your economy is going through. Without economic clout, there's no global influence, and both for us are greater in the EU.

Hopefully the recent Cameron venture amply demonstrates -- international agreements aren't as easy as going it alone, and hoping for the best outcome. Now imagine the same attempted within an even looser framework of negotiations against national economies in the ballpark figure of the EU as whole, say the USA and China, how well do you think we will come out of it all without the bloc's clout and a list of fanciful demands? How would you effectively prevent dumping strategies, for example, that even neoliberal economists would warn to take action against, when you're 1/10th of the economy of your foreign counterpart?

Besides, the key Commonwealth figures are warning that increased trade on their part won't compensate for EU losses we would incur by departing (though small shop owners and media personalities disagree); so you'd already be starting you re-negotiations with Europe post Brexit and the world with a massive handicap and a real sense of desperation. Nothing 'great again' can emerge from that.

Say what you will, whatever your political ideals are, a sound economic plan is needed to pay for the whole shebang, in or out. The ins have economic cred, the outs not even a hot mess on paper, and are pressing ahead against the majority of independent economic advice.

 

[Trifid]

We have a lot more say in the world then 1/190th, yes we are no USA but we are no Belgium either. As much as you may want to believe otherwise, we are not a small country with a small voice. This only happens in the EU because we are not a fully signed up and committed member. Regarding NATO contributions, check which countries are meeting their obligation. But I am not suggesting using a big explosive stick to force trade, if any sticks are going to be used, it will be the EU. And do we want to be part of a club that keeps in members in line with a stick? And I have many times conceded that economically leaving will hurt, but this will be minimised by a slow exit.

 

[Malevolence]

This whole long drawn out renegotiation process has highlighted the EU’s undemocratic institutional arrogance. It shows the utter disregard Brussels has for member states.

It is the perfect example of how Britain is ruled by the EU.

The Prime Minister goes to Brussels, cap in hand, begging the Germans, the Poles and the Romanians to make the most minor concessions on areas of trade, border control and benefits – concessions which make no difference, concessions which are completely worthless.

Far from restoring independence to Britain, this deal blows apart the whole myth that Britain controls its own destiny.

The British public should make no mistake – the Prime Minister asked for little and will get even less.

Uncontrolled European immigration will continue, the City of London will remain unprotected, the British Parliament will still be overruled, the burden of red tape will linger on and a vote to Remain will be seen by Brussels as a vote for ‘ever closer union’.

The process will now go from futility to theatricality. There will be last minute rabbits out of the hat which will be presented with a traditional European fanfare. The truth is it will make no difference as on every single previous occasion the Brussels bureaucrats will rigidly prioritise the aim of a federal Europe over the real interests of nations.

The British public now have the opportunity join a historic fight to win our country back.

- David Davis, earlier today.