The Referendum.

[Bruff]

I’m not clear on something: the EU is a single market and so a tariff free area of some 500M folk, the world’s largest economic bloc. I’m not clear why it’s therefore economically ‘useless’. I couldn’t agree more with the idea of tariff free trade, and free trade deals aim to do just that. The EU single market goes even further, but the trade-off is the free movement of people; I see it as dishonest and inconsistent to argue for free movement of goods, services etc. but not for people to follow this. For all his faults, Mr Farage is at least honest in recognising this and is clear he wouldn’t be interested in access. The main Leave campaign have the task, among many other things, of explaining how they will access the single market (which they say they want) without having the free movement of people the EU would almost certainly demand (we currently have an opt-out). Current argument seem to be ‘because we’re worth it’, which might manifest as a rude awakening. Just as it would when it dawns we can’t tell the likes of Australia what to do anymore, if we decide to go knocking on their door.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

I agree. The EU, for all its flaws, is a step towards a more sensible and integrated world. Similar moves towards greater integration can be seen in other groupings around the world because of the practical benefits. Apart from any other considerations, for many reasons besides economics and trade, greater integration and understanding has to be the road map for the future. What depresses me about the campaigning, for both in and out, is that the arguments are mainly on the basis of economics or migration, nobody seems to be talking about the social and philosophical imperatives. Tom Paine must be turning in his grave......

[Tizer]

Instead of fleeing from the problems in the EU we should be staying and leading the way in solving those problems and creating a better system. Many of the other member countries want Britain to stay and hold this country in great esteem. France and Germany played a major role in creating the EU; now it's time for the UK to come to the fore. If we leave we'll have thrown away that chance forever and the union may collapse, with serious political, economic and social consequences. Boris and Gove want us to run away from the challenge and live on a fictitious little magic island isolated from the real world.

[Stanley]

I totally agree Tiz. The key phrase for me which you used was 'fictitious little magic island isolated from the real world'. Quite! Every time someone mentions 'tradition' in this context I immediately react against them. I draw a distinction between genuine tradition having roots lost in the mists of time and the artificial constructs, largely Victorian inventions, that pass for 'tradition'. These are used to reinforce ideas that I find totally repugnant and I link most of them to unearned privilege. Think monarchy, aristocracy and establishment. The days of empire are long gone, we are a vigorous and inventive race living on a small island in the Atlantic Ocean and our future should be in having a part in the reformation of the old world order, not burying our heads in the sand and perpetuating the injustices and mistakes of the past. Leaving the EU would be a retrograde step and a rejection of the new realities of a global village and a new age.
All right I am an old internationalist with leanings to the left. I'd rather be that than a blinkered 'Little Englander'!

[plaques]

Before delving into the politics of the referendum its worth turning the clock back to see what has happened in the past when you come across this sort of turmoil..
One of the oddities of revolutions in Europe is that they were invariably started by people in the top two layers of the societies. Generally the ruling Monarchies along with the land owning Church would be defending their position against the next rising tide of wealth in that particular country. This second tier could see that the opportunities for advancement and also a larger slice of the spoils would never happen without overthrowing the first tier. They also recognised that it could never take place without the assistance of the lower orders of society namely the third tier. (the working class). At this point it is worth noting that only the 2nd and 3rd tier paid taxes while the 1st tier got away without paying anything but enjoyed the benefit of spending it for their own use.
Although the third tier represented 80% of the population, ie: the workers, it never enjoyed the organisation or the finances to initiate or sustain a rebellion on its own. Even to get them interested in taking part required bribes and promises and endless quantities of misleading propaganda most of it being a misrepresentations of the facts or complete lies. Depending on the final outcome of the revolutionary change the third tier would either fall back below their starting point or remain in the same lowly position. With a bit of luck they may advance slightly if the second tier moved up. Of course after a generation or so the whole process would be put into reverse and the ousted party taking over again and so repeating the cycle of events.
In some respects the current referendum is almost a carbon copy of what we have seen in the past. The principle drivers are the far right Conservative capitalists, against the more moderate Conservative capitalists. The far right wanting to get back to the old system where they owned everything and controlled everything. The moderates electing to continue within the EU but hopefully adjusting the rules to their own advantage. The current propaganda ranges from returning to the mythical golden era that never was to ‘don’t panic’ we’ll get there in the end. The one thing that you can rely on is that neither of these two factions are remotely interested in the advancement or the wellbeing of the third tier, but in both instances require the help of the working class to achieve their objective. Now we enter the propaganda phase. Virtually no in-depth analysis of the pros and cons just single line sound bites of macho posturing or scare tactics. Cameron, who should have known better than to get into this mess to start with, now has to rely on Corbyn’s support to keep him in a job. Likewise, Osborne is having to rein-back on his austerity programme otherwise another block of voters may go over to the ‘out’ camp. The country is now faced with ten weeks of lies, damned lies and statistics after which there will be months of further speculation to see what is going to happen. Perhaps the best way out of this toxic mess is to call a snap election and cancel the whole idea of a referendum.

[Stanley]

What a splendid post P. "The far right wanting to get back to the old system where they owned everything and controlled everything." is a key phrase. In the present case, back to the laisser faire of the 19th century. The first time the lower class got a taste of power was after the Black Death in the 14th century when the fact that almost half the workers died they were able to assert themselves and take the first steps towards breaking free from Feudalism. The imperative for improvement of public health during the great epidemics of the mid 19th century started when it was the poor workers, essential to society, who were dying. The great move towards 'physical efficiency' in the late 19th century was triggered when the quality of recruits for the Crimean War was found to be so low. The present Welfare cuts and animosity towards migrants is driven by the lack of unskilled jobs in the economy to soak up those disadvantaged by a bad education system. Remember Thatcherism spawning the concept of 'be glad you have got a job'?
You are correct in your analysis, particularly the deterioration we will see in the next nine weeks in the quality of debate.

[Tizer]

To paraphrase Matthew Parris in a recent article, you only have to look at who are the leading proponents of the Brexit campaign - e.g. Gove, Johnson, Farage - to know that staying in is the best option!

[Bruff]

I agree with so much in the posts above. Tizer: yes, it has so far been all about the economics, but the EU is as much a political institution as economic (along with the social/philosophical Stanley mentions). This is why if we exit, the calculation in the EU will not just be the economics, but the politics of contagion should the UK appear to swan out and get a grand deal. The Leave campaign either ignores or simply does not grasp this. Frau Dr Merkel may well be lobbied on day 1 of any Brexit by BMW and the like, but any weight they have will be balanced by her assessment of the political context. Mr Grayling at the weekend on Marr simply assumed she’d roll over in front of BMW: a massive miscalculation in his part I reckon. Marr should have really pushed him on this.

I agree too that the Leave line-up is anything but edifying. If anything links Gove and Grayling (aside from the former’s having to undo the calamity that is the Justice Ministry after the latter’s tenure) it’s their antipathy to the European Court of Human Rights (which we must always note is nothing at all repeat, nothing at all, to do with the EU), and ‘Human Rights’ in general. They want to withdraw from this, which given that is a cornerstone of the Irish Good Friday Agreement (a UN-Treaty between two Nation States) shows they have not the first clue at all. They are fast and loose, dangerous people.

Richard Broughton

[Sue]

I have enjoyed these discussions. The official discussions as usual are just like kids arguing. One says one thing so the other automatically disagrees. A lot of name calling and the use of the word nonsense. At the door of the day we will all gave to follow our own hearts and beliefs. Most of us are not in a position to fully understand the economics as we don't have the figures, but it is interesting to read what non politicians have to say. Thank you.

[Stanley]

I agree with you Sue. I know it's dangerous to be complacent but there is much more common sense in this thread than in the general debate. It's necessary to remind ourselves that the major figures in the debate so far are people with other axes to grind. The Tories because of internal dissent and a hankering for the good old days when the 'plebs' were firmly under control and UKIP because they are a one horse party. The 'letters to the Times' contingent are concert parties egged on by the opposing factions. The real losers in all this are the voters, whatever their inclinations because normal government is at a standstill This is bad, factional party politics based not on a dispassionate assessment of the real issues but on personal ambition, the selfish quest for preferment and sheer dishonesty.
Richard is quite right about the damage, both immediate and future which this campaign is having on the EU project. John Paul Juncker made a speech yesterday highlighting the need for revision of the aims of the project which made good sense. We should be supporting him, not undermining him. (The Daily Mail reminds us he had a Nazi father in law.....)

[Bruff]

Given the Daily Mail’s ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ headline back in the 1930s, you’d think they’d be a little more circumspect on these matters. Still, what was it a former German Ambassador to the Court of St James said was the primary British characteristic (this was about 10 years or so ago)? Continued and unyielding resistance to Nazi Germany. You’d think we’d have grown out of it by now….

Because I’m a nerd, I have a pretty good understanding of the EU and its institutions and so can see through a lot of the rhetoric or clarify peoples’ misunderstandings on EU workings etc. (the trade-off is I don’t know a great deal about loads of other things). So when Mr Gove yesterday in a reply to a journalist’s question brushes aside concerns about ‘Article 50’ and the ‘2-year period’ by noting Greenland took a great deal longer than that to invoke Article 50, I know he’s pulling the wool over folk’s eyes, or hasn’t the first clue. This is because Article 50 was established by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, coming into effect in 2009.

Greenland left (what became the EU) in 1985. The Lisbon Treaty and so Article 50 didn’t exist.

Article 50 is essentially the mechanism by which a Member State signals its intentions to leave the EU and the negotiations that will follow.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Greenlanders were interviewed about the EU on a recent Radio 4 programme and not all of them are happy about being outside the EU. If they had a referendum now they couldn't be so confident of an out decision. Many of them now see the advantages offered by EU membership.

[Sue]

Interesting Tiz

[Tripps]

If I was a Greenlander - I'd want to be in the EU, but I'm not a Greenlander.

I share Stanley's view "please let it soon be over". We are currently bombarded with numbers and forecasts, which may, or may not be right, but I don't have the resources or the time or the brains to work it all out. I think that if we vote 'out' then in the following few years, we will be in a good position to negotiate the changes which are needed, and align ourselves in a way which suits us. If we vote 'in' then there are no more options in that direction, and never likely to be. On our own as one of 28 members states, we will not achieve the change needed.

I am concerned at the expansionist attitude of the current setup. Trying to get closer ties, and eventually admit Ukraine has caused problems. Who can blame Putin for opposing that? I see that Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey (!) are in the waiting room, whilst Georgia, and Moldova, are associates. Was it Sam Goldwyn who said - Include me out.

[Bruff]

Turkey applied to join the EU in 1987 and are no nearer being admitted now than they were then (they have I think met 1 of the 37 metrics; in nealry 30 years). The biggest cheerleader for Turkish admission was the UK (it’s only very recently we’ve started um-ing and ah-ing). So a Brexit would based on historic support make the fear or many outers, Turkey’s admission, less likely. That’s irrelevant though – all members of the EU have to agree to their joining (and anyone else joining too) and France and Demark have to have a referendum on the decision (as I think do the Netherlands). And do we think they will vote for Turkey’s admission?

Given the tension in the Ukraine, their admission is off the table. And Serbia and Bosnia et al are miles away from meeting even the most basic ‘human rights’ and ‘anti-corruption’ standards. A worry about this expansion in the near future (or even the next decade or more likely two) is not really justified given where the countries are. That the EU may expand eastwards further though is a goal. As was expansion into the former Eastern Bloc and Soviet countries, again the UK being the biggest supporter of this. And who can begrudge their admission, crushed as they were under the Soviets or in the case of the traumatised Romanians the frankly psychopathic Causescus? Some are thriving economies now, some less so, but ‘twas ever thus. Ireland was a priest-ridden, rural backwater when it was admitted; now with EU monies it’s come a long way. That is the intention with the likes of Romania and Bulgaria: bring their economies up the likes of France and Italy so that the EU keeps and adds to its being the biggest economic and consumer bloc in the world.

Mr Putin may be concerned about Ukraine; he will, should Mr Gove’s odd desire it seemed yesterday to see the whole EU collapse, be licking his lips I imagine at strolling into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

I would just note that ‘out’ means ‘out’; there is no scope at all for negotiating any changes to the EU from the outside if that is what’s inferred. Why would there? If the Scots voted for independence, we’d take a dim view of their trying to extract changes at Westminster to somehow reverse that decision. If we vote to leave, we have left and that will be it for what is certain to be the rest of our lifetimes. One reason why the young need to weigh things up carefully: it will effect them far longer than me

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

Can they ever put Humpty Dumpty together again? Said to be a parody on the fall of Richard111 at Bosworth Field but increasing looking like the fall of David Cameron on the EU referendum. The conservative party well known for their ability in showing a united front under the most adverse conditions are now falling apart in a way that has never been seen before. Incredibly, some of the leading ‘exit’ players are saying what a good chap Cameron is and even if he loses he should head the negotiations for the exit. This is total twaddle. Either they are trying to cover their backs against losing or they are still trying to convince the public they are united in government. Kenneth Clarke is right in saying he won’t last 30 seconds. If they actually believe their own propaganda they don’t deserve to last 30 seconds themselves. An ‘out’ vote will probably bring the conservative party to its knees. Unfortunately, the country will be down there knelt in prayer alongside them. Unless Cameron can get his act together and stop treating people as though he is in the House of Commons with his bunch of braying donkeys behind him he is in line to lose this referendum.

[Stanley]

Nice point about article 50 Richard. That's the first I have heard of that. Confirms my view that if the likes of Gove and Redwood advocate leaving that's a good reason for staying! I knew a man who was a senior civil servant in Wales under Redwood and he told me then that the man was dangerous.....
I just heard a news item on the fact that Brenda is 90 today and the terribly disloyal thought occurred to me.... Imagine a country later this year with a revolt in the Tory Party, Boris as PM and Chuck on the throne.... Life is a terminal disease and she can't last much longer...... I wish my imagination wasn't so active.....

[Bruff]

It could be worse than that Stanley. Should the Queen with her advancing years be left incapable of making decisions, and so incapapble of abdicating, until such time as she (I think) slips the coil the duties of the Monarch pass to the Lord Chancellor. Step forward the current incumbant: subjects, I give you Mr Michael Gove……..

Isn’t our ‘constitution’ marvellous?

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

...and here he comes now! And who's that trailing behind him? Of course - it's Boris, the court jester!

Time to bring back Monty Python and Spitting Image!

[Stanley]

Richard, that hadn't occurred to me.... Oh My God!

[plaques]

Although set out against the Poor Laws in the 1800’s the fundamentals of piece below is being used as the main argument for restricting immigration into the UK. There is no attempt to use the extra labour to increase productivity or to acknowledge that it could be beneficial to our society just the blind dogma that we don’t want Jonny Foreigner here at any price.
Part of the Tory DNA? Who knows.

‘A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of other guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The report of provisions for all that come, fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counteracting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all her guests should have plenty, and knowing that she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full.’

Written by the 1800’s philosopher the Reverend Malthus against the Old Poor Laws that existed at that time. His main theme was that any state assistance given to the most poor in society was not justified on the grounds that it would encourage others to ask for the same assistance. In effect it was kinder and cheaper on society in the long run to let them starve to death.

[Stanley]

Perfect post P. The only thing I would add to it is the sentence 'As long as there are enough labouring class bodies to service industry and army'.

[plaques]

What will the newspapers say after the referendum. Of course it all depends on the outcome and which paper we are looking at. Let’s start with the Telegraph a truly impartial unbiased paper. (Look out there goes another flying pig).
.
A victory for the ‘REMAIN’ will probably say that the Churchillian statesmanship of David Cameron came through at the end. Not only did it unify the country in standing side by side with Europe in facing some of the most important economic and climate problems of this century but also demonstrated that the Conservative party stood by its manifesto in allowing the country a vote on a subject that has been simmering in the background for years. Since it was only a single issue vote the outcome would only strengthen the party behind the future trade agreements and George Osborne’s austerity programme. Conversely, it also demonstrated that the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn is totally split and will remain so long as he stays as leader. Corbyn’s contribution to the ‘remain’ vote was negligible and at times detracted from Cameron’s clear and logical arguments.
(Picture of David Cameron with his stiff upper lip.)

A victory for the ‘LEAVE’ will show that although David Cameron was a brave and courageous leader but the results of the referendum showed that the time was right to unite the Conservative party in a direction that will make Great Britain a world leader in a new era of free trade and capitalist traditions. Conversely, it also demonstrated that it is time to throw off the shackles of Corbyn’s left wing Labour party and leave behind the moribund communist leaning Europeans. It also demonstrated that the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn is totally split and will remain so long as he remains leader. Corbyn’s contribution to the ‘remain’ vote was negligible and was in total opposition to the will of the country. His flip flopping between leave and stay impressed nobody and would have had more substance had he backed Boris in the ‘leave’ campaign.
(Picture of Boris waving the Union Flag.)

In other words. Business as usual. Up the Tories, Down with Labour.

[Stanley]

That assumes the Telegraph is still publishing after the referendum P....
Good job you aren't writing copy for them, or perhaps they'll just copy what you have said and print it.
You're quite right of course, there will be a lot of squirming after the vote to fit political views with reality. Richard boiled it all down on April 15th in economic terms; "I’m not clear on something: the EU is a single market and so a tariff free area of some 500M folk, the world’s largest economic bloc. I’m not clear why it’s therefore economically ‘useless’."

[Pluggy]

I'm with 'Have I got news for you' The world is going to hell in a handcart whether we vote remain or leave. Working on the assumption the the effect will be somewhere between the extremes, nothing will be much different either way.

But I'm just an old cynic.