UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[SeanF]

(I'm also puzzled as to why you think Brexit is about a desire for economic autarky. It isn't. It's much more about distaste for what the European Project has become).

To the 1% and the rich, independently wealthy people leading the Brexit campagin yes, I imagine that the economic repurcussions of Brexit are not at the forefront of their minds. In fact, they've told us this. Numerous Brexit campaigners have said that they predict a "period" of economic hardship for Britain following departure but in the "long run" we'd be better off. Neither term has been quantified. Farage has gone a step further and, at least with honesty, said that he would rather see Britain impoverished than remain part of the European Union.

However, whilst these wealthy individuals (in Farage's case, who got wealthy from working in the EU) don't give a flying shit about the economic argument, the people of Britain very much do. The 2008 crisis is still relatively fresh in everyone's mind, the recovery is extremely fragile and people are concerned about having enough money to live on. So, regardless of whether the Brexit camp want to or not, they are going to have to make the economic case for leaving. And the pro-Brexit economic argument is thin to the point of being ephemeral.

This is why we are seeing the Brexit arguments being framed around, for want of a better term, nationalism and the idea of "taking back control" without really defining what that means or how that will improve things for the average British person, for whom the differences between being ruled by a wealthy elite in London or a wealthy elite in Brussels are academic.

Well, academic apart from what Simon Sweeney identified in a letter to The Guardian:

"What did the EU ever do for us?

Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;

structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;

clean beaches and rivers;

cleaner air;

lead free petrol;

restrictions on landfill dumping;

a recycling culture;

cheaper mobile charges;

cheaper air travel;

improved consumer protection and food labelling;

a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;

better product safety;

single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;

break up of monopolies;

Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;

no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;

price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;

freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;

funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;

access to European health services;

labour protection and enhanced social welfare;

smoke-free workplaces;

equal pay legislation;

holiday entitlement;

the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;

strongest wildlife protection in the world;

improved animal welfare in food production;

EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;

EU representation in international forums;

bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;

EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

European arrest warrant;

cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;

European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;

support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;

investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.

All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

The EU's two great projects are the Common Agricultural Policy, which is expensive and wasteful, and the Euro, which has been disastrous for millions of Southern Europeans, generating very high levels of unemployment, and stagnating living standards, so I don't share Simon Sweeny's rose-tinted spectacles. If an organisation messes up on a big scale, as I believe the EU has done, it calls into question the merits of being part of that organisation.

As to keeping the peace, firstly warfare between democracies is unusual, and secondly, we've been part of a successful military alliance, NATO, for far longer than we've been part of the EU.

WRT the economic impact of leaving, the Economist, a couple of months ago, did an in-depth analysis. The Economist is very strongly pro-EU. their view was that at best, Brexit would boost GDP by 1%, and at worst, it would reduce it by 2%. That suggests that the economic impact of leaving is unlikely to be large in either direction.

[SeanF]

Why I'll be voting Leave is on political grounds. Most people in the UK want the EU to be just a trading relationship, and British politicians have sold EU membership to the public as being only that. Most continental politicians, outside of Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe, really do wish to create full political union, and are up-front about that. Their reasons for doing so are honourable, namely, they never want to see their countries go to war with each other again. But, I don't think that these two philosophies are compatible, so I think it's best for both sides if we part, and then develop in different directions.

Isn't this why Cameron got the exemption of the UK from the commitment to ever-closer union? I guess you think that's insufficient.

The exemption means little, when the practice is ever-closer union.

Edit: the Justice Secretary believes that the exemption is not legally binding.

[Chaircat Meow]

NATO will not last forever. In the long run it has to be foolish to depend on the Americans to protect Europe. They are traditionally isolationist and are now beset by ever growing problems.

But I don't see how the EU can be accorded much role in securing peace in Europe thus far. After WWII Europe was portioned between two hegemonic extra-European powers, the USA and the USSR, and these two empires kept their satellites in line. Germany was demoralized, partitioned and had foreign armies quartered on it. So, no real chance of a European war.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

The EU's two great projects are the Common Agricultural Policy, which is expensive and wasteful, and the Euro, which has been disastrous for millions of Southern Europeans, generating very high levels of unemployment, and stagnating living standards, so I don't share Simon Sweeny's rose-tinted spectacles. If an organisation messes up on a big scale, as I believe the EU has done, it calls into question the merits of being part of that organisation.

The EU's great projects have been to increase European unity and to grow the European economy, which have been very successful. CAP and the Euro were not the projects, but the tools used to progress the projects. They've had their problems, to be sure. But the idea that the correct response to a problem is to leave, rather than fix it, isn't one I can agree with.

Quote

As to keeping the peace, firstly warfare between democracies is unusual, and secondly, we've been part of a successful military alliance, NATO, for far longer than we've been part of the EU.

And as to getting dressed, I have a nice pair of jeans, but that doesn't mean I don't need a jacket too.

NATO and the EU each contribute to keeping the peace in very different ways. To say you don't need one because you have the other is not a great argument.

[Hereward]

40 minutes ago, mormont said:

But the idea that the correct response to a problem is to leave, rather than fix it, isn't one I can agree with.

An odd argument from a supporter of leaving the UK.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Hereward said:

An odd argument from a supporter of leaving the UK.

Maybe - though no odder than the legions of people now taking the reverse position. But my reasons for voting Yes in that case weren't to do with the UK as a project having failed, or similar. They were to do with a judgement about the best way of governing Scotland. And a large factor in that was a concern that remaining in the UK might lead to Scotland leaving the EU...

[Hereward]

And that is fair enough. But my judgement is that the best way of governing England is to leave the EU. The stay campaign is using the same economic and security apocalypse arguments that so angered Scottish Yes voters. They may even be right. But despite not being part of the uncaring 1% Werthead talked about (I presume he's talking about the late Wedgie!), I'm willing to take the risk, as you were. Scottish independence is just an added bonus!

[Chaircat Meow]

40 minutes ago, mormont said:

Maybe - though no odder than the legions of people now taking the reverse position. But my reasons for voting Yes in that case weren't to do with the UK as a project having failed, or similar. They were to do with a judgement about the best way of governing Scotland. And a large factor in that was a concern that remaining in the UK might lead to Scotland leaving the EU...

I find that odd. Firstly, because it is still very unlikely the UK will leave the EU, even at this time. Secondly because the rUK is a much more important market for Scotland, and a source of greater funding and military protection, than the EU.

How much will your desire for indy diminish if/when the UK votes to remain?

[SeanF]

52 minutes ago, Hereward said:

And that is fair enough. But my judgement is that the best way of governing England is to leave the EU. The stay campaign is using the same economic and security apocalypse arguments that so angered Scottish Yes voters. They may even be right. But despite not being part of the uncaring 1% Werthead talked about (I presume he's talking about the late Wedgie!), I'm willing to take the risk, as you were. Scottish independence is just an added bonus!

  While it may be getting a bit ad hominem to bash "the 1%", the 1% are very much on the side of Remain, rather than Leave.

[Hereward]

I know, but there was so much that was inaccurate in that series of posts, I couldn't be bothered pointing it all out!

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

And that is fair enough. But my judgement is that the best way of governing England is to leave the EU.

Which I don't have a problem with, as such. I just find the argument that runs 'the Euro is in trouble, therefore the EU is a failed project, therefore we should leave it' is lacking.

If the Leave campaigners can put up the level of detail on what a post-EU UK would look like that the Yes campaigners did, that'll be fine. I haven't seen anyone do that yet, but I hope it will be forthcoming.

Quote

The stay campaign is using the same economic and security apocalypse arguments that so angered Scottish Yes voters.

I'd argue they are not, and that there is in any case an enormous difference in tone. It was very much the tone that angered Scots - not just Yes voters, by the way, but lots of undecided voters too. 

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I find that odd. Firstly, because it is still very unlikely the UK will leave the EU, even at this time. Secondly because the rUK is a much more important market for Scotland, and a source of greater funding and military protection, than the EU.

How much will your desire for indy diminish if/when the UK votes to remain?

It'll still be there, though perhaps reduced, because I find the UK to be a very different arrangement than the EU, for a variety of reasons, and because I believed then and believe now that Scotland getting access to rUK markets would be simpler and easier than the UK getting access to EU markets (though I don't doubt the latter will happen, and that the EU will want it to happen).

[SeanF]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

I'd argue they are not, and that there is in any case an enormous difference in tone. It was very much the tone that angered Scots - not just Yes voters, by the way, but lots of undecided voters too. 

 

Oh, I think Project Fear is alive and well in this campaign, whether it's the Prime Minister warning of immigrants setting up shanty towns in Kent, or retired generals warning us that leaving the EU leaves us vulnerable to ISIL, or claims that 3 million jobs will be lost if we leave the EU.       Negative campaigning works, however much lip-service is paid to the idea that campaigns should be positive.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Oh, I think Project Fear is alive and well in this campaign, whether it's the Prime Minister warning of immigrants setting up shanty towns in Kent, or retired generals warning us that leaving the EU leaves us vulnerable to ISIL, or claims that 3 million jobs will be lost if we leave the EU.       Negative campaigning works, however much lip-service is paid to the idea that campaigns should be positive.

How does that work? The EU does not run military and security services?

[Hereward]

It's utter bollocks. One, because our intelligence capability is vastly greater than any of our EU partners, and is integrated with the 5 Eyes, not with the EU. Second, because EU country intelligence organisations don't cooperate with each other. The only way they exchange information is bilaterally, generally through Britain*. Lastly, those relationships would still exist regardless of whether we are in the EU or not, essentially, they need us a lot more than we need them.  

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35600736

[ab aeterno]

This is quite topical to the current debate.

 

[Lummel]

17 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

...The EU's two great projects are the Common Agricultural Policy, which is expensive and wasteful, and the Euro, which has been disastrous for millions of Southern Europeans, generating very high levels of unemployment, and stagnating living standards, so I don't share Simon Sweeny's rose-tinted spectacles...

Would you like UK agriculture with out the CAP though?  If I was to crudely suggest what that might be like it would be suggest that there'd be no hill farms outside the charitable sector and one giant wheat farm covering the whole of East Anglia and adjacent counties in so far as they were flat enough.  And there'd be no hedges. 

Subsidy regimes by their very nature tend to be conservative and to keep things by and large as they are - are we ready for an agricultural sector governed purely by market forces, or, and this is what I suspect would often be the case, a UK parliament outside the EU would end up doing much the same as a UK Parliament inside the EU for soft systems thinking reasons - ie it makes political and cultural sense to Parliamentarians.    

With regard to the Euro I recently read a book on German politics which pointed out that much the same occurred during the pre-Euro recession in the 1990s too.  This isn't purely a reflection of a single currency, more of linked and in the case of the PIGS, vulnerable economies.

For me this is a big point against Brexit and a huge one in favour of ever closer union - our current political units are far too small to deal with the problems we're confronted with, whether economic, environmental, military, or diplomatic.  Ok one can confront any and all of these bilaterally - its just a hell of a lot of work compared to opting to into a bunch of broadly similar thinking states and doing it collectively.   Its the same argument as in 1707.  And while sharing sovereignty, and with a mess of largely Catholic countries at that, is an awkward prospect to my mind it is easier and better than the alternative (which after all, in the form of EFTA, we have tried)

[Werthead]

Quote

WRT the economic impact of leaving, the Economist, a couple of months ago, did an in-depth analysis. The Economist is very strongly pro-EU. their view was that at best, Brexit would boost GDP by 1%, and at worst, it would reduce it by 2%. That suggests that the economic impact of leaving is unlikely to be large in either direction.

The economic impact of leaving, regardless of what camp you fall into, is highly uncertain, except for the fact that most of the leading Brexit supporters have said they are willing to accept damage to the British economy rather than remain in the EU. For them, leaving or remaining the EU is a matter of rhetoric, nationalism and ideology. Which is nice for those who can afford to think that way. For everyone else, the economic argument is paramount and the economic argument agrees that uncertainty in the marketplace is inevitable.

If this was fifteen years ago or some point when the economy was booming and things were going very well (for Britain and the world economy), an argument could be made for taking a punt, as there would be sufficient elasticity within the system to absorb a bad decision. That is very much not the case right now. The economy is fragile and it will not take much to plung us back into another recession. The fear is that the next one will be even worse than the last one. Playing games with Britain's economy is really not advisable in the current situation.

Quote

The exemption means little, when the practice is ever-closer union.

Except that the unanimous, constant pushing-forwards attitude of the EU of 10-15 years ago is not the situation at the moment, as the rise of more right-wing, nationalist parties in several EU member states can attest. The attitude now is far more cautious, Greece (and to a lesser extent Portugal and Ireland) have been warning calls that the Euro has some serious problems in it and popular opinion, even in France and Germany, is far less pro-EU than it used to be. The UK calling for a brake on ever-closer union has actually been echoed by other countries as well.

Quote

Edit: the Justice Secretary believes that the exemption is not legally binding.

He's just spent the day being curb-stomped by every legal expert out there, from the UK government, independent sources and the EU itself, so that avenue was rather quickly shut down.

Quote

But I don't see how the EU can be accorded much role in securing peace in Europe thus far. After WWII Europe was portioned between two hegemonic extra-European powers, the USA and the USSR, and these two empires kept their satellites in line. Germany was demoralized, partitioned and had foreign armies quartered on it. So, no real chance of a European war.

We have had several European wars in the Balkans since then (the ferocity of which took the rest of Europe by surprise), the rise of tensions with Russia, terrorist campaigns within several countries and now the rise of funadmentalism. France and Germany aren't going to war any time soon, no, but security and military risks remain.

Quote

If the Leave campaigners can put up the level of detail on what a post-EU UK would look like that the Yes campaigners did, that'll be fine. I haven't seen anyone do that yet, but I hope it will be forthcoming.

There've been quite a lot of calls for this and so far the only answers have been vague. It's a bit concerning that when it's been pointed out that the United States has refused to negotiate separate trade deal with us to Europe, the only response from the Brexit camp has been "Well, they're lying." The level of evidence and fact-based arguments from the pro-exit campaign should be rather higher than that.

Quote

 

Oh, I think Project Fear is alive and well in this campaign, whether it's the Prime Minister warning of immigrants setting up shanty towns in Kent, or retired generals warning us that leaving the EU leaves us vulnerable to ISIL, or claims that 3 million jobs will be lost if we leave the EU.       Negative campaigning works, however much lip-service is paid to the idea that campaigns should be positive.

 

Amusing, because the Fear arguments have also been made from the other side. Iain Duncan Smith informed us that Britain's national security is weaker if it remains in the EU (whilst not articulating why). We've also been told that if we stay we will have to adopt the Euro (which will never happen), that Cameron's concession agreement will be torn up (which will never happen) and we will be forced to become part of a United States of Europe (which will never happen).

[VarysTheSpider]

I'm sure there are risks on both sides of this decision and I am so sick of hearing about how discussing the risks are fear-mongering or whatever. I'm not sure I can take another four months of hearing both sides accuse the other of inciting the biggest fear. I mean, I'm scared of having no money or dying - I am decidedly not scared of what schemes might be introduced to replace the common agriculture policy. Perhaps I will release my frustration at work - the next time someone tries to make me update a risk register I'll just accuse them of orchestrating Project Fear and delete the file.

[SeanF]

18 hours ago, Werthead said:

The economic impact of leaving, regardless of what camp you fall into, is highly uncertain, except for the fact that most of the leading Brexit supporters have said they are willing to accept damage to the British economy rather than remain in the EU. For them, leaving or remaining the EU is a matter of rhetoric, nationalism and ideology. Which is nice for those who can afford to think that way. For everyone else, the economic argument is paramount and the economic argument agrees that uncertainty in the marketplace is inevitable.

If this was fifteen years ago or some point when the economy was booming and things were going very well (for Britain and the world economy), an argument could be made for taking a punt, as there would be sufficient elasticity within the system to absorb a bad decision. That is very much not the case right now. The economy is fragile and it will not take much to plung us back into another recession. The fear is that the next one will be even worse than the last one. Playing games with Britain's economy is really not advisable in the current situation.

Except that the unanimous, constant pushing-forwards attitude of the EU of 10-15 years ago is not the situation at the moment, as the rise of more right-wing, nationalist parties in several EU member states can attest. The attitude now is far more cautious, Greece (and to a lesser extent Portugal and Ireland) have been warning calls that the Euro has some serious problems in it and popular opinion, even in France and Germany, is far less pro-EU than it used to be. The UK calling for a brake on ever-closer union has actually been echoed by other countries as well.

He's just spent the day being curb-stomped by every legal expert out there, from the UK government, independent sources and the EU itself, so that avenue was rather quickly shut down.

We have had several European wars in the Balkans since then (the ferocity of which took the rest of Europe by surprise), the rise of tensions with Russia, terrorist campaigns within several countries and now the rise of funadmentalism. France and Germany aren't going to war any time soon, no, but security and military risks remain.

There've been quite a lot of calls for this and so far the only answers have been vague. It's a bit concerning that when it's been pointed out that the United States has refused to negotiate separate trade deal with us to Europe, the only response from the Brexit camp has been "Well, they're lying." The level of evidence and fact-based arguments from the pro-exit campaign should be rather higher than that.

Amusing, because the Fear arguments have also been made from the other side. Iain Duncan Smith informed us that Britain's national security is weaker if it remains in the EU (whilst not articulating why). We've also been told that if we stay we will have to adopt the Euro (which will never happen), that Cameron's concession agreement will be torn up (which will never happen) and we will be forced to become part of a United States of Europe (which will never happen).

There's a good discussion in this article about whether the agreements reached by David Cameron are legally-binding here, in this summary by Joshua Rozenberg:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/feb/24/david-cameron-eu-deal-legally-binding-michael-gove-analysis-joshua-rozenberg

Conclusion, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. 

I take your point. regarding the rise of populist parties.  I wish we weren't having this vote till next year, so that we could see the outcome of the French and Dutch elections.

[Filippa Eilhart]

One thing I don't understand: even if a judge were to declare the deal not biding (which I really doubt anyone would have the guts to), who's supposed to bring it to the court in the first place? Surely not the 28 countries or the Commission as they all agreed to it.