UK Politics MCMXXXIX: Should I stay or should I go now?

[The BlackBear]

I didn't watch it, but a friend of mine summarised it thus:

Quote

I'm concerned not just about our children but our children's children and their children's children's children. I'm not just talking on behalf of the British people which I love and I quite frankly think Britain is great and the British want to feel great again. What I say is control , we need more control and I'm not talking about the control our children might have or inherit and talking about the control that our children's children and also our children's children's children .......It might take not just hours but days and not just days but months and even years. If we negotiate it could take decades which leaves a dilemma for not just our children but our children's children and even our children's children's children........

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Chaircat Meow]

That was much better. I have to say Leave were much more impressive because they formed a more coherent team.

[VarysTheSpider]

Watched it for an hour before the fiance suggested playing Uncharted 4 instead. I readily aquiesced. 

Really was puzzled by Remain going for Boris so personally. It hasn't worked out well for anybody before, it isn't going to start being an effective tactic now when it's less relevant. 

[mormont]

I didn't watch the debate, but a tactic of going after Boris personally makes some sense in the context of being worried about Labour voters not turning out (as the Remain camp actually are). If we assume they don't like Boris, then making it about him will presumably motivate them.

[Chaircat Meow]

Sooooo ...

That poll from ORB eh?

Tbh I think we will still vote remain. However, I do think this will now be closer than it was in Scotland.

[polishgenius]

It's proper given me the fear, although the tone of the Independent's report almost makes me think that they've somehow contrived it on purpose to encourage Stay-voters to actually vote.

[Werthead]

On 06/06/2016 at 3:08 PM, Commodore said:

don't buy the claim that political union is a prerequisite for free trade

It is not "a claim", it is a prerequisite for not just being a member of the European Union, but even engaging in close ties with it (as Switzerland and Norway have discovered).

Brexit will be followed by an economic realignment with Europe. The imposition of tariffs in many sectors will have to take place so as not to undermine confidence in the rest of the EU: if Britain gets free trade, control of its own borders and still effectively all the perks of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities or costs, than quite a large contingent of the rest of the EU will demand to know why they can't do the same thing. The imposition of tariffs is inevitable if we insist on border controls. The EU not doing so, even at an economic cost, would be politically damaging to the cohesion of the union.

Quote

What are the negative political ramifications of exit? 

It could trigger the collapse of the entire EU, or at least begin a process that leads to such. Which might be desirable from several perspectives, but unfortunately one of them is Vladimir Putin's.

Quote

Minorities in any social organization need the ability to exercise voice (to persuade the majority) and exit (to separate from an unpersuadable majority). 

Europe experimented with being broken down into a quilt of medium and micro-states for about two thousand years. It didn't work very well.

Quote

But the raison d'etre of the EU isn't economic. It's political. It's why the Euro project continues, despite making no economic sense.

I think this is increasingly an outdated view, even from EU fans. The notion of the EU evolving into a United States of Europe is one closely held by a few people (mostly in Germany and Brussels) but is not widely supported at a populist level across Europe, and the cracks between the former supposed allies who cling to "ever-closer notion" - most notably Paris and Berlin - have become quite notable. 15 and even 10 years ago, the EU was framed as a Berlin-Paris axis with other countries, including large and economically powerful ones like Britain, kept on the sidelines. That is very much not the case now. The former eastern bloc countries joining the EU has diluted that power balance, not to mention the fact that Hollande and Merkel's economic and political views are very much not in lockstep (as the previous administrations were), despite various attempts to harmonise their views.

In fact, the arguments for Brexit were much stronger fifteen years ago (to the point where I would have considered supporting it): Britain's considerable and growing economic strength which could have weathered a departure far better than now (where a recession as a result of Brexit is possible to probable, depending on the forecast); our influence in Europe in the face of Franco-German opposition was negligible compared to recently, where (often with the support of the very countries we derided joining the EU in the late 2000s) we have won significant battles on issues such as the EU budget; the power imbalance between Euro members and non-members was less clearly delineated; and our economy was less dependent on migrant labour.

The European Union as a political dream that will lead to a utopian superstate stretching from Ireland to Russia is something that I think almost no-one in Europe really believes in. The view of it on the ground is a strong political and economic alliance that can better survive in a world of massive power blocs, maintain peace within Europe more readily and allow movement around the continent with fewer impediments.

Quote

Really was puzzled by Remain going for Boris so personally. It hasn't worked out well for anybody before, it isn't going to start being an effective tactic now when it's less relevant. 

This was a desperate and I think mistaken move. Absolutely everyone knows that Boris is a political opportunist who really doesn't have too much of a problem with the EU (as his passionate arguing for Turkey joining not too long ago indicates), he's just undertaken a gamble to become Prime Minister. It's cynical. It's also, I think, a relatively minor concern versus the big issues of the debate itself. I also think that people within the political bubble underestimate how little people outside that bubble care, even about the personalities. They just want a clear debate about the facts, and both Remain and Leave have failed to really get to grips with that. The fact that the primary leaders of both camps belong to the same political party and ideology hasn't helped that at all.

[Altherion]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It is not "a claim", it is a prerequisite for not just being a member of the European Union, but even engaging in close ties with it (as Switzerland and Norway have discovered).

Brexit will be followed by an economic realignment with Europe. The imposition of tariffs in many sectors will have to take place so as not to undermine confidence in the rest of the EU: if Britain gets free trade, control of its own borders and still effectively all the perks of being in the EU with none of the responsibilities or costs, than quite a large contingent of the rest of the EU will demand to know why they can't do the same thing. The imposition of tariffs is inevitable if we insist on border controls. The EU not doing so, even at an economic cost, would be politically damaging to the cohesion of the union.

I think he meant that theoretically, it is possible to have free trade without a political union. If all everyone wanted was free trade, then the costs and responsibilities of being in the EU do not exist. It might be that the realignment you mention will actually be towards something closer to that for everyone, especially if other countries also decide to leave as some are hinting. There's no obvious benefit for most countries to having bureaucrats in Brussels deciding on migrant quotas or charging a premium for the slaughter of cows or whatever.

[Chaircat Meow]

Supposedly more polls are coming out tonight. So we will see if they also report swings. Apparently private polling for number 10 has also reported big swings to Brexit, and this explains the panic. Ipsos Mori, one of the pollsters to show big remain leads has also said it has been including too many graduates in its phone polls, so it must be worried it is getting the situation wrong.

I said a while back that Labour Leave said they had lined up a prominent frontbencher to declare for them. This week we've had three labour MPs (John Cryer, John Mann and the Beast of Bolsover) declare for Leave but no frontbencher afaik.

The attacks on Boris are a mistake, although maybe not one that matters too much. Drawing attention to Boris isn't really a good idea for Remain at all, in my view, because it reinforces the fact that he, not Nigel Farage, is leading the Leave campaign.

I'm also hearing about lots of despair in the Labour party. Apparently their supporters are proving far more hostile to the EU than was originally anticipated. And the problem is not only with the white working class because the ethnic minorities are also said to be failing to show the expected for levels of support.

I can't see this any further apart than Scotland. I think it will be a lot closer.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Europe experimented with being broken down into a quilt of medium and micro-states for about two thousand years. It didn't work very well.

Dubious claim at best. WWI and WWII took place when there were far fewer states than there are now, and it is just as easy to argue that the drive towards supranational blocs or empire dominated by a single or double nationality were the cause of conflict and war.

 

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

 

In fact, the arguments for Brexit were much stronger fifteen years ago (to the point where I would have considered supporting it): Britain's considerable and growing economic strength which could have weathered a departure far better than now (where a recession as a result of Brexit is possible to probable, depending on the forecast); our influence in Europe in the face of Franco-German opposition was negligible compared to recently, where (often with the support of the very countries we derided joining the EU in the late 2000s) we have won significant battles on issues such as the EU budget; the power imbalance between Euro members and non-members was less clearly delineated; and our economy was less dependent on migrant labour.

Now this is just flat out untrue. Our influence was far greater 10-20 years ago, as British diplomats and civil servants were massively disproportionately represented in the top levels of the EU, and Britain had great influence in the pan-European political party coalitions. . Now, that's our fault for withdrawing from frontline involvement, but still. It is also untrue to say that Britain derided eastern European countries joining the EU.Britain was the leading advocate of eastern expansion. France was the one who opposed it. Britain went as far as to waive initial limits on free movement that were imposed in most of the rest of the EU.

 

 

[Maltaran]

41 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I said a while back that Labour Leave said they had lined up a prominent frontbencher to declare for them. This week we've had three labour MPs (John Cryer, John Mann and the Beast of Bolsover) declare for Leave but no frontbencher afaik.

 

I'm guessing they meant John Mann as chairman of the PLP. Skinner being for Leave is unsurprising given he's one of the few remaining Bennites.

[Werthead]

Quote

I think he meant that theoretically, it is possible to have free trade without a political union. If all everyone wanted was free trade, then the costs and responsibilities of being in the EU do not exist. It might be that the realignment you mention will actually be towards something closer to that for everyone, especially if other countries also decide to leave as some are hinting. There's no obvious benefit for most countries to having bureaucrats in Brussels deciding on migrant quotas or charging a premium for the slaughter of cows or whatever.

Yes, that is true, and if that realignment comes along then the EU might well evolve in a direction that Leave campaigners would be happy with regardless.

The holes in the Leave argument are so substantial that it's actually quite possible that the entire thing is a gamble based on the EU collapsing wholesale after Britain leaving. Britain as one medium-sized country and economy working alongside twenty-odd other ones (which would be more likely to work together economically in a new pan-European trading bloc without the corresponding political framework) makes sense. Britain as one medium-sized country and economy trying to deal with a colossal super-economic bloc right next door with limited leverage does not.

Quote

Dubious claim at best. WWI and WWII took place when there were far fewer states than there are now, and it is just as easy to argue that the drive towards supranational blocs or empire dominated by a single or double nationality were the cause of conflict and war.

The drive towards multiple and ideologically-opposed blocs within Europe, yes. The move to a large alliance of autonomous nations united primarily by economic development and the desire for peace (the two being effectively the same thing) is a rather different matter.

It was the suggestion that Europe would do well to be become an array of small countries that was more problematic, as the previous periods when we had lots of small and medium-sized countries in Europe were times of turbulence and bloodshed, not to mention the ineffectiveness of a large number of small countries to each deal with large blocs such as China, the United States, Russia and India as individuals.

Quote

Now this is just flat out untrue. Our influence was far greater 10-20 years ago, as British diplomats and civil servants were massively disproportionately represented in the top levels of the EU, and Britain had great influence in the pan-European political party coalitions. Now, that's our fault for withdrawing from frontline involvement, but still.

We may have had more civil servants in Europe at the time, but their effectiveness whenever Britain wanted to go against the grain was dubious. The Franco-German alliance was the dominant force in the EU throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and Britain was effectively shut out by that alliance. During the times we agreed with them (which was quite a lot of the time, to be fair), great and in fact our power at that point was rather impressive (during Kosovo, which wasn't an EU matter but still saw Britain, France and Germany all on the same page) but the second we didn't, tough luck.

This is not the case today. Britain is now effectively the second most-powerful country in the European Union, outstripped solely by Germany (maybe - just - on paper France, but France is on a downward slide that shows no signs of abating), and we can neutralise that advantage by maintaining alliances with other states in the union (and again Britain and Germany agree on a lot of stuff anyway). On current trends, Britain will become the most powerful, richest and most influential country in the EU in under fourteen years.

Voting to leave the club when we are just about to become (effectively) the leaders of that club seems like a self-defeating proposition.

Quote

It is also untrue to say that Britain derided eastern European countries joining the EU.Britain was the leading advocate of eastern expansion. France was the one who opposed it. Britain went as far as to waive initial limits on free movement that were imposed in most of the rest of the EU.

The British government backed it - possibly cynically for the very reason of it bolstering the economy at the expense of countries like France - but there was colossal, widespread hysteria in the press and amongst opposition parties about Britain being invaded by hordes of Romanians.

[Chaircat Meow]

No swing from Opinium. Still putting it 51/49 for Remain. Yougov might come out soon.

This article about the likely French response to a Brexit is fairly interesting.

http://www.politico.eu/article/france-plan-for-a-bloody-brexit-eu-referendum-consequences-europe-hollande-david-cameron/

[Chaircat Meow]

No swing from Yougov either. They have 51/49 for leave. So ORB poll looking more like an outlier.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 6/12/2016 at 0:09 AM, Altherion said:

I think he meant that theoretically, it is possible to have free trade without a political union. If all everyone wanted was free trade, then the costs and responsibilities of being in the EU do not exist. It might be that the realignment you mention will actually be towards something closer to that for everyone, especially if other countries also decide to leave as some are hinting. There's no obvious benefit for most countries to having bureaucrats in Brussels deciding on migrant quotas or charging a premium for the slaughter of cows or whatever.

The key word is theoretically. No free trade deal is a truly free trade deal. The situation for countries within the EU is so much freer than between countries with a free trade deal. So whatever kind of deal an exited Britain could get on trade would not be as good as what it has now, unless it signed a treaty that basically made Britain adopt all EU regulations, unmodified, for any trade into the EU.

[Chaircat Meow]

There was a rumour on twitter that ICM were publishing a poll at 12:30.

Now their site looks to have crashed out under weight of traffic!

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

There was a rumour on twitter that ICM were publishing a poll at 12:30.

Now their site looks to have crashed out under weight of traffic!

We'll get it at 5.

Mike Smithson accidentally retweeted ICM poll numbers from a month ago, causing real gyrations on foreign exchange markets.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, SeanF said:

We'll get it at 5.

Mike Smithson accidentally retweeted ICM poll numbers from a month ago, causing real gyrations on foreign exchange markets.

 

Yeah, I saw. Amusing.

[SeanF]

Spoiler

30 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yeah, I saw. Amusing.

 

Now released, two polls by ICM, one telephone, the other online.

Both put Leave ahead by 53/47%.