EU Vote

[Robert]

Julie, my advice is to buy more time to ponder the issue, by voting Leave - you will surely be ordered to vote again.

[curious4]

Read the other day that even if a majority vote to leave, the government is not bound to follow. Will try to find the article.

C4

[Svensson]

Hi Rosella

I too feel bad about Australia and New Zealand. I had no say in our joining the Common Market - that was done without asking the public what they thought about it. In the referendum that followed, in 1975, I voted to leave the Common Market, but the leavers were outvoted two to one.

Hi Julie

I'm not blaming the whole of the German nation for Hitler. One can argue back and forth about the precise level of complicity of the Germans in the crimes of the Nazis. But it's easy to slip into shorthand - "Germany," "the French," etc. I would only repeat that I believe that the ordinary citizens of the European countries are proud patriots. It's the elite that I loathe.

BTW, I don't think Svensson's views are quite from 'outside the UK' since he says he's lived in London for 24 years. Indeed I assume he's a British citizen, because he says he's going to vote in the referendum.

All, I am not forgetting the part played by our allies. The only reason I spoke about the British fighting in the war is because it's the British who are being accused of being isolationists, Little Englanders, racists etc.

correct on pretty much everything. I had to endure journalistic manure from the three dailies for decades now and I find it puzzling that they continue to get away with it. Although a potential hot potato, I think that we do need some kind of press standards commission of some kind. The three dailies have an agenda to spin every story that is somehow EU related to ensure that the headline is Anti-EU instead of reporting the actual story.

For example: two (or three) weeks ago, some minister was on the Andrew Marr show and stated that the EU would be powerless to prevent Turkey from joining the EU. Andrew Marr pointed out that the UK had a veto on new members joining but she actually stated that "this is not correct, the UK does not have a veto". It then took about 3 hours for about 25 politicians to point out to her that the UK DOES have a Veto, so Her statement was not correct.

Fast-forward 18 hours and I picked up a copy of the Daily Express to see how they were reporting it. In fact, I was actually expecting them on not reporting on it at all because this comment had massively backfired on the Leave campaign the day before, but again, I under-estimated the Daily Express. Their headline was:

"Minister: We have no veto to stop Turkey from joining the EU! (full story on page5)".

Now this is actually correct because they have cleverly used the quote from the minister but they are suggesting to the reader that the EU did not have a veto, which is of course incorrect.

On we go to Page 5 to read the "full story". Here, the headline was "Cameron faces backlash from angry Tory-members over publically scalding own minister". which may be true, but again, this is not the story here because the real story is that the minister made an incorrect statement. It was not until paragraph 7 that the Daily Express reported (in small-print after several pages of hysterically screaming headlines) that the UK actually DOES have a veto.

So here we see an example of how the Daily Express is systematically bending every single press standard in order to purposefully communicate a wrong version of the actual story.

This has been going on for many many years and this was left unchecked by this as well as previous governments as it would not create a problem. However, now that there is a referendum, this is suddenly turning into a huge issue. One that can no longer be addressed in the short time between announcing the referendum and actually holding the referendum.

Back to the "Racist" issue: I am calling out Farage and Johnson for making racist comments and presenting them in a way that makes such comments socially acceptable. This does not mean that the Leave Campaign is inherently racist but this is a strategy that is designed to extract maximum impact with complete disregard for the consequences such a strategy might have.

[curious4]

This is it.


The Telegraph
ALL SECTIONS
News
More

Telegraph News
Brexit is 'not deliverable', says David Cameron's father-in-law


Laura Hughes, political correspondent
7 JUNE 2016 • 6:56PM
A Brexit is "not deliverable" because parliament could conspire to block Britain leaving the European Union, David Cameron's father-in-law has claimed.

Lord Astor, who is Samantha Cameron's step-father, has said that a Brexit would have "not legal standing" even if the public vote to leave the 28 member bloc in June.

The Conservative peer also cast doubt over whether his son-in-law would be able to stay on as Prime Minister after the referendum.

David Cameron
David Cameron
Writing in the The Spectator, he said: "If the Brexiteers win, an exit from the EU is actually not deliverable. The EU referendum is merely advisory; it has no legal standing to force an exit.


"Parliament is still sovereign. We will need an Act of Parliament to revoke the European Communities Act 1972, by which Britain joined the EEC or Common Market, or perhaps a paving bill enabling the Government to start the Leave negotiations. But whatever, a vote will be required.

Union Jack flags fly in front of The Houses of Parliament, in London
Union Jack flags fly in front of The Houses of Parliament, in London CREDIT: JASON ALDEN/BLOOMBERG
"The Government, whether still led by David Cameron or not, would probably not win the vote in the House of Commons.

"Labour could claim the referendum was too close and did not include a majority to leave in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

"Therefore the Labour Party, the SNP and the few Lib Dems would claim to have the mandate to vote against the bill."

Lord Astor
Lord Astor CREDIT: IAN JONES
Membership of the House of Commons is overwhelmingly pro-EU, with just over 70 per cent of its present members campaigning for Remain at the referendum on June 23.

Unnamed ministers have told the BBC that in the event of a vote to leave, pro-EU MPs could engage in what one called a “reverse Maastricht” process - a reference to the long parliamentary campaign fought by Tory Eurosceptic MPs in the 1990s against legislation deepening EU integration.

This could see pro-EU MPs using the Conservative government's small working majority to push for the UK to stay in the single market.


© Telegraph Media Group Limited 2016

C4

[Svensson]

Read the other day that even if a majority vote to leave, the government is not bound to follow. Will try to find the article.

C4

Hard to tell how legally binding he referendum is but it would take a Commons house with serious cojones to disregard the outcome of the referendum and I think this would be extremely unwise. Fact is that the Remain corner in this fight have a massive majority in Parliament, so Parliament would have to act against its own convictions.

The crux is that the referendum does not state what alternative relationship the UK should have with the EU and it is therefore up to the government to negotiate the new relationship and for parliament (both houses) to ratify the new relationship. It is very conceivable that the UK will exit the EU but then join the Single market. if that were the case, the UK would still be required to accept continued budget contributions, continued free movement of labour, and continued supremacy of EU law over British law in the single market. All of which is the very point that the Leave camp are campaigning against.

[Robert]

Hard to tell how legally binding he referendum is but it would take a Commons house with serious cojones to disregard the outcome of the referendum and I think this would be extremely unwise.

Do you know, Svensson, you could have been talking about the famed UK right of veto there.

Although a potential hot potato, I think that we do need some kind of press standards commission of some kind. The three dailies have an agenda to spin every story that is somehow EU related to ensure that the headline is Anti-EU instead of reporting the actual story.

Um, let me guess : would that be a press standards commission designed to outlaw any statement with which EU supporters disagree? Perhaps overseen by the EU itself?

[Svensson]

Sorry to mention the war, Svensson - it obviously pains you - but it's a good job you weren't around when it was happening. You'd have burst a blood vessel. All those Little Englanders, Little Scotlanders, Little Welsh and Little Irish going off to die so that Little Britain could govern herself - they must all have been racists, right? I'm surprised we're allowed to remember them once a year. I dare say the EU will put a stop to that in due course.

Populism? You mean, saying things that people like? Or giving people what they want? Smells too much like democracy. Can't have that.

The EU has been rumbled. I saw through it 40 years ago. Some poor devils never will. But I believe that there is a real chance that we can finally escape from this impudent fraud.

I think bursting a blood vessel would be the least of my problems had I been around at a time when 50 million people lost their lives in the biggest orgy of violence this world has ever seen.

No, the Englanders are not racist which I think I have addressed a couple of posts above. And no, I believe there is no EU directive planned or being worked on to ban remembrance day. I also doubt that the EU have jurisdiction over such arrangements and if the Daily Express/Mail/Telegraph were to report just this, I would bet my house that this would (of course) be incorrect

I consider populism the dark art of dumbing down complex subject in order to get a particular response or to a point where they are no longer correct. For example:

1. Mexicans are rapists
2. We (UK) have no control over our borders.
3. We are governed by Brussels Bureaucrats.

no need to talk about the first point, but on the second point, we obviously forget that every passport is checked at UK borders and entry can be blocked by the HM Border guards. "Open borders"? Don't think so, but the issue has been dumbed down to the point of not being correct.

On the third point, the EU actually governs in agreement with its memberstates. The UK for example have 77 MEPs, members in the European council as well as the commission. the UK have representatives at every level of the EU law making process from conception to ratification. And even then, the UK still have a veto if they are after all this input still not happy with it.

So the idea that EU laws are being handed down by Brussels against the will of the UK is over-simplifying the issue to the point that it not correct. It's like saying that Manchester, who overwhelmingly voted Labour in 2010 and 2015, have Tory-laws handed down on them against their will. Cue the Mancunian independence movement. Should be interesting...

[curious4]

Hard to tell how legally binding he referendum is but it would take a Commons house with serious cojones to disregard the outcome of the referendum and I think this would be extremely unwise. Fact is that the Remain corner in this fight have a massive majority in Parliament, so Parliament would have to act against its own convictions.

The crux is that the referendum does not state what alternative relationship the UK should have with the EU and it is therefore up to the government to negotiate the new relationship and for parliament (both houses) to ratify the new relationship. It is very conceivable that the UK will exit the EU but then join the Single market. if that were the case, the UK would still be required to accept continued budget contributions, continued free movement of labour, and continued supremacy of EU law over British law in the single market. All of which is the very point that the Leave camp are campaigning against.

There is a precedent in Sweden. The Swedes voted against changing from driving on the left, to driving on the right. The government went ahead and changed to the right anyway.

C4

[Svensson]

Hard to tell how legally binding he referendum is but it would take a Commons house with serious cojones to disregard the outcome of the referendum and I think this would be extremely unwise.

Do you know, Svensson, you could have been talking about the famed UK right of veto there.

Although a potential hot potato, I think that we do need some kind of press standards commission of some kind. The three dailies have an agenda to spin every story that is somehow EU related to ensure that the headline is Anti-EU instead of reporting the actual story.

Um, let me guess : would that be a press standards commission designed to outlaw any statement with which EU supporters disagree? Perhaps overseen by the EU itself?

No, the UK parliament has a veto or an opt-out option (depending on the type of statute or directive) for EU regulations, not its own referendum (http://www.euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/v.html)

Yes, better press standards are required. The Press have a responsibility to provide correct information in a way that is easily accessible to the reader (not in paragraph 7 on page 5 when the front-page says the complete opposite).

Interesting idea to have the EU oversee this. Look at what is happening in Turkey where journalistic freedom has all but disappeared under Erdogan and the press is now just a propaganda-machine used for political purposes.

Let's just say IF there was an EU press regulation and Turkey WAS a member of the EU, would this not an additional layer that would have protected free press in Turkey..? As I said, potential hot potato, but that should not stop us from doing thought experiments like this one.

[Robert]

we obviously forget that every passport is checked at UK borders and entry can be blocked by the HM Border guards.

Svensson, have you any idea how many people are here who shouldn't be here? No? Nor does Cameron.

It's like saying that Manchester, who overwhelmingly voted Labour in 2010 and 2015, have Tory-laws handed down on them against their will

Of course they do. The difference is that Manchester is a part of Britain, its people are British and they reluctantly accept the laws. EU laws, on the other hand, are made by an alien power representing a population in which British people are in a minority.

I'd still like to hear about this press standards idea of yours.

[Svensson]

There is a precedent in Sweden. The Swedes voted against changing from driving on the left, to driving on the right. The government went ahead and changed to the right anyway.

C4

and how did that workout for the government at the next election? I hope they were trounced

[Robert]

Svensson, I've just seen your last post. What I meant by the veto remark was :

"Hard to tell how legally binding the veto is but it would take a British Prime Minister with serious cojones to disregard the rest of the EU and I think this would be extremely unwise."

So you DO think the EU should control the Press?

[Svensson]

Svensson, I've just seen your last post. What I meant by the veto remark was :

"Hard to tell how legally binding the veto is but it would take a British Prime Minister with serious cojones to disregard the rest of the EU and I think this would be extremely unwise."

So you DO think the EU should control the Press?

No I don't. I think that each member state should regulate their own press. Different countries have different journalistic traditions and therefore different requirements.

[curious4]

and how did that workout for the government at the next election? I hope they were trounced

Nope :-D

C4

[Robert]

Thank you, Svensson. Now if you'd said :

"I think that each member state should govern itself. Different countries have different traditions and therefore different requirements."

then I'd have been in complete agreement with you.