EU Vote

[GUT]

What will it mean for the PM.?

[Limehouse]

Actually Limehouse, although you are writing from the perspective of a resident of the United Kingdom, I know precisely how you feel. It is how I feel at the November Presidential choice of Hillary v. Donald. It is how I feel having worked for three decades in the New York State civil service, and seen the shenanigans involved in promotions by the appointed heads of agencies - a situation that most people never observe, but is so much an example that the old concept of "jobbery" still exists to this day - most likely in all countries. It also colors memories of how my agency was basically undercut by mismanagement, some of it planned by the favorites of former governor Cuomo [the first one] in a scheme to shelve us into a larger agency that did not handle what we handled (as an "economic" move - a better one would have been to cut executive salaries by 25% or so). I have less respect for elective officials now than I did when I began to work for the government, and it is due to what I experienced.

Jeff

Thanks for your interesting comments Jeff.

My husband and I had a conversation last weekend about how the motives and objectives of politicians, of all persuasions, have changed so much over the years. I have never been a 'Tory' (as we call the Conservatives in the UK) but the complexion and behaviour of the top 'Tory' politicians and some of their contemporaries in other parties has changed dramatically since the 1960s and 1970s when I was growing up. I look at many of them with contempt because it is clear that how ever much they claim to care about 'the man/woman in the street' and the country as a whole, their concern is barely more than skin deep. So many of them do not have to worry about how to pay the next round of bills and whether they will have to work until they're 75 because the system has let them down, no matter how hard they worked and saved.

[GUT]

Well, IT and BBC calling it 'Out'.

Prob know for sure in the morning but this decision, although I am not over there, seems wonderful to me.

Mind if I say congratulations?

Here in Aus they're reporting that it's going to be real close, but probably out.

[Beowulf]

Well, IT and BBC calling it 'Out'.

Prob know for sure in the morning but this decision, although I am not over there, seems wonderful to me.

Mind if I say congratulations?

[Pcdunn]

Walls?

The existence of these "higher legal entities" asserting sovereignty over the state are a major reason for Trump's popularity. No-one looks out for the interests of a people as well as they themselves do. It's long past time to start controlling the borders again, and putting the walls back up.

Just for the record, and our international friends, there were never "walls" along United States borders, as far as I know. Not physical ones, anyway... Well, unless you count the Relocation Centers for Japanese American citizens, but they were within our borders.

[Geddy2112]

Stolen from the interwebs...

'Unlike everyone else, who seemingly overnight has become a champion of European legislation and a bastion of the legalities of immigration, I genuinely know f**k all about politics.
Honestly. Can't even tell you the difference between labour, conservatives or the other ones. Is it Lib dems? I don't know what they do. Tories are c***s though... That's literally the extent of my knowledge.
It just doesn't interest me because, and I'm aware that this is painfully apathetic and stupid, but it's boring and I don't see how any of it's actually set up to help me. If I was a bank or building society or a business that operated on the global market or just a c**t who went to Eton and fancied making all my pig diddling mates peers or something then yeah, I'd give more of a s**t. But I'm not. I'm just a bloke who works in a call centre 8 hours a day and whether we're in or out of Europe I'll still have £68 pound a month to pay for bus fares. I'm trapped in renting so I couldn't give less of a s**t about "community" because I'm not really part of one because I might move again in 6 month so what's point? I'll still be skint either way, the concept of owning a house will remain a sick joke and I'll still have to work until I'm a billion and 30 just to retire on the £8.47 I've got saved up in my work pension (yes I'm aware all of these are political points... Irony's funny, isn't it?) but governments aren't set up for people like me... They're set up for people who are either tragically, tragically poor or people who are almost belligerently rich. Even if we save money by coming out, who gives a s**t? What, we're suddenly going to start looking after old folk and buying hospitals are we? Wont we need the four food banks in Leeds anymore? You talk actual p*ss. Any money saved will go into buying more pigs or moats for duck houses.
The point for me is this though; A university professor of 12 years, what has got an actual PhD, specialising in European constitutional law and the relationship between the EU and its member states, specifically the UK, the single market and the free movement of people has said its a f**king s**t idea to leave the EU.
Surely that's enough then? Let's agree with him, surely? He probably knows what's chong and what's not chong.
I mean I know you've got a BTEC in sports science and, yeah... sure, your lass has got her level 1 hairdressing certificate and you both went to Tossa De Mar once for holiday but his points seem to come across better than yours somehow. Like, his arguments are built around solid premises and formulated on numbers and research and s**t whereas yours are like "Yeah well The Sun says all black people are w**kers, so...".
The best way I can think of it is in terms of the biscuit club at work. Everybody pays in and everybody gets nice biscuits. Sure you can get your own biscuits if you want but it's a lot of f**king about and you'll only have to share them anyway. What, are you gonna legitimately eat them all to yourself in an office are you Sharon? Right well that's why you wear sports socks and can't find a husband. Yeah, not everyone gets the biscuits they want all the time but if your choice is s**t biscuits sometimes or no biscuits ever then it's a f**king no brainer. What if you want help to get biscuits but nobody cares because they're sorted for Jaffas now? What about your relationship with people who are still in biscuit club? You think they'll be happy with you tapping Hob Nobs off them everyday because you forgot to go to Jacksons at the weekend? Get to f**k. "Oh no, loads of new people want to join in with biscuit club now!" So? More people means more / better biscuits. Yeah you might have to share more but what are you, 5? If you don't want to share biscuits then f**k off back to Russia you pinko commie swine. Plus, why do you think they WANT to join? It's because these biscuits are brilliant and they haven't got any. Sometimes people do Ramadan and can't eat biscuits while the suns up... Who gives a s**t? Don't have biscuits then. It's ok... Just have them later. Take them home for when suns gone down for all I care. And yeah, some people try and blag it... They don't pay what they should or they eat more than you but you don't just f**k biscuits off all together because of a couple of d**kheads. Grow up you babies. "He hasn't paid for biscuits and by rights he's eating my property!". Yeah... Jason's not paying this week because he's got d**k cancer and he's got better things to worry about. Let him have a biscuit you tight b**tard. F**k me. Plus his wife's got alopecia. Difficult home life mate. Give him a biscuit while he sorts his head out.
I'm just gonna go with the PhD bloke to be honest because he's smarter than everyone else and I f**king love biscuits me.'

[Robert]

The EU is a fascist Ponzi scheme. Of course it will fail.

[jason_c]

The existence of these "higher legal entities" asserting sovereignty over the state are a major reason for Trump's popularity. No-one looks out for the interests of a people as well as they themselves do. It's long past time to start controlling the borders again, and putting the walls back up.

I agree. With regards to the EU: the greater centralization of powers within the EU the greater push-back we see against it. It's no coincidence we have a rise of the populist right across Europe. If people wish to stop the populist right then stop taking sovereignty away from nation states. Svensson says sovereignty is an emotive issue. Well, emotive issues are amongst the most powerful of issues. I wouldn't claim to know how the EU project will progress; whether it will succeed or fail. What I do know is this: further integration will lead to further discontent. This discontent main be contained, but the risk is huge imo.

[Ginger]

Edit: And at a time when a US presidential candidate is openly talking about an immigration policy based on Religion or culture, (not nationality), talking about Racial profiling and where Ted Cruz has suggested that "Muslim Neighbourhoods must be secured" (whataever that means), I find it actually re-assuring that there is a higher legal entity to protect certain humanitarian areas from potential abuse by the state.

The existence of these "higher legal entities" asserting sovereignty over the state are a major reason for Trump's popularity. No-one looks out for the interests of a people as well as they themselves do. It's long past time to start controlling the borders again, and putting the walls back up.

[Svensson]

I don't buy this whole "sovereignty" thing anyways. If anything, it is an emotive argument but reality is that absolute sovereignty does not exist in today's world. As soon as you are part of an organisation (i.e. the UN) you agree to be bound by its rules (for example, UN Human rights charter, etc). It means that a UN member no longer has the "sovereignty" to commit crimes against humanity, etc. If they do, they are hauled into a UN or ICC court that takes precedence over local courts. There is nothing wrong with that and I would even go a step further and applaud and support this.

On a smaller level, it also means that when you enter an agreement, there needs to be an arbiter in case conflict arises. It is there to protect both sides who take part in the agreement, or all 28 sides in case of the EU. This makes sure that the trade between all 28 countries is fair. For example, EU law forbids nationalisation of Services that are traded Europe-wide. In particular:

Gas, Electricity and Financial Services can be traded across the EU. A gas provider from Kent can buy their supplies from another provider in another EU country. The EU law does block state governments from nationalising gas suppliers and, with state subsidies, be able to undercut all other gas suppliers in Europe. So an EU law that has supremacy over national law is there to protect the European gas-market. Such a law is actually necessary for the free movement of goods and services to work, otherwise, there is no point to it.

And here is the thing: the EU works on those principles (as do other large trade areas, i.e. the United States) and if the UK wants to have access to this trade area after Brexit, they would still need comply with these rules, otherwise British Gas will not be allowed to trade in the EU. The only alternative to Brexit is to have no relationship with the EU at all and go down the road of hundreds of bilateral agreements.

Edit: And at a time when a US presidential candidate is openly talking about an immigration policy based on Religion or culture, (not nationality), talking about Racial profiling and where Ted Cruz has suggested that "Muslim Neighbourhoods must be secured" (whataever that means), I find it actually re-assuring that there is a higher legal entity to protect certain humanitarian areas from potential abuse by the state.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think this needs to be seen in the context that Britain has in the past been seen as a cherry-picker in the EU. They have special status on a number of issues and Cameron has negotiated further concessions from the EU back in February that will come into force if Britain votes to remain in the EU. What Schäuble, and many others are saying is that in the negotiations of the new status with the EU, there will be no special status for the UK. There are basically four options available to he UK and one of them can be negotiated.

"in is in" -> The UK will remain a member under the current system and the changes that Cameron has negotiated will be implemented.

"Out is Out" -> The UK can take up one of the options that already exist. The EU will not negotiate a "special option" for the UK (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf).

Yes, Schäuble is a tough bar-steward and he usually means what he says. This works both ways.

It also needs to be seen in the context of the EU as a political and legal union - that was always the intention on the part of the French and Germans.

It should also be noted that the people of this country voted to join due to the trade agreement, not as a road to political integration.

At this juncture we have no option but to leave for any person who believes in the sovereignty of this nation.

[Svensson]

After reading a NYT article about E.U. warns Britain on "Brexit" you'll pay if you leave us" for myself, if someone were to threaten me against a decision I'm making, it makes me want to choose the one I'm being threatened to not do.

I know that is just human nature, and perhaps leaving really is a bad idea. I do not know at all. I'm not knowledgeable on this, but it makes me think the one threatening is the one who gains from my not doing it. Not me.

It's not often someone threatens one to stop doing something for THEIR good. Usually the 'threater' is made because they are losing something THEY want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/wo...=top-news&_r=0

I think this needs to be seen in the context that Britain has in the past been seen as a cherry-picker in the EU. They have special status on a number of issues and Cameron has negotiated further concessions from the EU back in February that will come into force if Britain votes to remain in the EU. What Schäuble, and many others are saying is that in the negotiations of the new status with the EU, there will be no special status for the UK. There are basically four options available to he UK and one of them can be negotiated.

"in is in" -> The UK will remain a member under the current system and the changes that Cameron has negotiated will be implemented.

"Out is Out" -> The UK can take up one of the options that already exist. The EU will not negotiate a "special option" for the UK (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf).

Yes, Schäuble is a tough bar-steward and he usually means what he says. This works both ways.

[Mayerling]

Since you know my posting history so well, you would know that I have challenged your sweeping lumping of 'the left' into one immoveable mass previously. 'The left' is made up of many factions (just like most political movements) and many shades and I am well to the centre and frequently challenge the 'party line' as you call it. It is certainly no secret that I am a socialist, but that certainly does not place me in the 'hard left' category and it does not mean that I respect all politicians who claim socialists leanings - with one or two exceptions.

My point about 'in with Cameron or out with Johnson' is a very valid one since they are both members of the party that is currently governing the country and, incidently, both members of the party that took us into the EEC (as it then was). Neither of them have a consistent record of thought when it comes to EU membership - and neither does Corbyn come to that.

Finally, I have previously, on several posts, referred to politicians as a shameful shower, referring to both the left and the right. I admire very few of them, even though I know several personally.

You don't know me. You don't know what has shaped me and continues to shape me so do not dare to tell me who I am and what I believe. It is because of people like you that I rarely venture on to this site any more and I am not going to discourse with you any further.

Actually Limehouse, although you are writing from the perspective of a resident of the United Kingdom, I know precisely how you feel. It is how I feel at the November Presidential choice of Hillary v. Donald. It is how I feel having worked for three decades in the New York State civil service, and seen the shenanigans involved in promotions by the appointed heads of agencies - a situation that most people never observe, but is so much an example that the old concept of "jobbery" still exists to this day - most likely in all countries. It also colors memories of how my agency was basically undercut by mismanagement, some of it planned by the favorites of former governor Cuomo [the first one] in a scheme to shelve us into a larger agency that did not handle what we handled (as an "economic" move - a better one would have been to cut executive salaries by 25% or so). I have less respect for elective officials now than I did when I began to work for the government, and it is due to what I experienced.

Jeff

[Beowulf]

After reading a NYT article about E.U. warns Britain on "Brexit" you'll pay if you leave us" for myself, if someone were to threaten me against a decision I'm making, it makes me want to choose the one I'm being threatened to not do.

I know that is just human nature, and perhaps leaving really is a bad idea. I do not know at all. I'm not knowledgeable on this, but it makes me think the one threatening is the one who gains from my not doing it. Not me.

It's not often someone threatens one to stop doing something for THEIR good. Usually the 'threater' is made because they are losing something THEY want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/world/europe/britain-referendum-brexit-european-union.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Limehouse]

Yes you did. You somehow turned a discussion surrounding whether or not Britain should remain a part of the EU, into a choice between two Tories. And, that pretty much tells anyone what they need to know about your political bias. Only 'the left' in their ridiculous, unfathomable, impenetrable minds could possibly do this.

And, you know exactly what 'the left' is. You claim it as your political position when the cap fits.

And, furthermore, for you to claim at this juncture that 'left' and 'right' are equally liberal with the truth is bordering on the ridiculous given your posting history which pretty much amounts to: "two legs good; four legs bad".

Who ya trying to kid? You don't believe they're all 'a shameful shower'. You're a fully paid up member of 'the left' who repeats the party line verbatim, except in this case for some strange reason.

I grant you that the Tories are not my cup of tea, never voted for them and never will do, but I absolutely can't stand the 'left' because they'll say anything depending upon the occasion; just as you have you done here. At least Boris Johnson, whom you mentioned, has principles that he stands by, toff though he is.

Since you know my posting history so well, you would know that I have challenged your sweeping lumping of 'the left' into one immoveable mass previously. 'The left' is made up of many factions (just like most political movements) and many shades and I am well to the centre and frequently challenge the 'party line' as you call it. It is certainly no secret that I am a socialist, but that certainly does not place me in the 'hard left' category and it does not mean that I respect all politicians who claim socialists leanings - with one or two exceptions.

My point about 'in with Cameron or out with Johnson' is a very valid one since they are both members of the party that is currently governing the country and, incidently, both members of the party that took us into the EEC (as it then was). Neither of them have a consistent record of thought when it comes to EU membership - and neither does Corbyn come to that.

Finally, I have previously, on several posts, referred to politicians as a shameful shower, referring to both the left and the right. I admire very few of them, even though I know several personally.

You don't know me. You don't know what has shaped me and continues to shape me so do not dare to tell me who I am and what I believe. It is because of people like you that I rarely venture on to this site any more and I am not going to discourse with you any further.