the EU referendum

[eFestivals]

So, Chicken Dave plans to have the ref by the end of 2017.

While I don't really want the ref, I accept that the majority of the country do - and so that's a good reason to have it, as long as the country accepts whatever the result is and doesn't do the Scottish thing of wanting neverendums. Its called 'democracy'.

So far, two important facts around it have come out.

Firstly, the question is to be phrased in the way that the positive 'yes' is for remaining in the EU. Farage has thrown his toys out of the pram, believing that his own side should have the advantage of being 'the positive side'.

Secondly, the franchise used will be the General Election criteria (UK citizens, & resident Commonwealth citizens) and not the wider 'local' franchise which includes resident EU nationals.

Farage likes that choice, apart from it including some EU nationals from Malta and Cypress (as ex-colonies). The SNP are far less happy, as they'd like the rules in the favour of 'yes' as far as the franchise is concerned.

Personally, while I can see a good rationale for using the 'local' franchise, I think I prefer the choice Cameron has made here.

He either had to choose one of the two versions we normally use, or he had to contrive something new. He's not contrived something new, which would be trying to gerrymander the result - and that's a good thing.

So of the two normal franchises he had to pick one or the other. If he'd gone for the EU version, that would look like gerrymandering to the likes of Farage and would allow them to cry foul at the result if it doesn't go for a Brexit.

Overall, I think denying Farage the chance to reject the result over the franchise used is the better option - tho of course I'm wanting the result to go one way, and I hope the use of the general election franchise isn't going to cause it to go the other way.

And finally, as the referendum is really about sovereignty rather than any other part of things, i think it's probably right that a sovereignty issue is decided by citizens rather than residents*.

(* I don't think the same should necessarily apply with referendums for Scottish indy - if for no other reason than there not being such a thing as "Scottish citizens" via which a 'citizen' criteria can be applied).

[gary1979666]

I'd be surprised if there's much disagreement with the above. I just hope there's sufficient movement with the other EU countries for Dave to claim it as a victory - less for the actual gains, but to sway the result to Yes.

As for the comment about what happens after the result, I think there'll be a similar result to the Indy referendum - so we'd end up in a surge for UKIP. Sadly.

[eFestivals]

I'd be surprised if there's much disagreement with the above. I just hope there's sufficient movement with the other EU countries for Dave to claim it as a victory - less for the actual gains, but to sway the result to Yes.

given that the UK already has the best deal in the EU I can't see them giving any movement at all.

But nothing Dave is saying he wants from them are things they rule over anyway. The whole thing is a sham on that front.

Then again, I don't want a changed EU deal anyway, so i'm happy with that sham.

As for the comment about what happens after the result, I think there'll be a similar result to the Indy referendum - so we'd end up in a surge for UKIP. Sadly.

worse than any surge for UKIP will be a refusal to accept the result, followed by immediate demands for another and another until the 'outs' get the result they want. And they'll claim the ones who refuse to accept the democratic result are the democrats.

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

given that the UK already has the best deal in the EU I can't see them giving any movement at all.

But nothing Dave is saying he wants from them are things they rule over anyway. The whole thing is a sham on that front.

Then again, I don't want a changed EU deal anyway, so i'm happy with that sham.

worse than any surge for UKIP will be a refusal to accept the result, followed by immediate demands for another and another until the 'outs' get the result they want. And they'll claim the ones who refuse to accept the democratic result are the democrats.

That's what I meant - a surge for UKIP is a refusal to accept the result. If the UK votes to stay, then if accepted, UKIP will fade away (which I guess was the point of it for Dave), but I think we both know that won't happen. Who knows, maybe this referendum is a vote for a generation!

Personally don't see much movement possible either, but it's the perception of movement that is needed. If they make some of the right noises, then might convince some of the don't knows.

[bunique]

Why does what Farage thinks matter? He's unelected and the leadership debacle made him look daft even in the eyes of his own supporters.

I don't think any concessions Cameron achieves will make a blind bit of difference at this point. People have made their minds up already whether they want to be in or out I think.

Also, not a citizen but get a vote I believe (Irish - not sure how many of us there are resident and whether it would make any difference!)

Edited May 28, 2015 by bunique

[eFestivals]

Also, not a citizen but get a vote I believe (Irish - not sure how many of us there are resident and whether it would make any difference!)

my apologies for missing Irish from my list of who the franchise includes. They're such an integral part of UK voting that I forgot them entirely.

[russycarps]

My understanding is it looks like the eu will offer an alternative to cameron to the "ever closer union" part of the treaty of rome, which would be enough for him to come back "victorious" (though it would require a treaty change).

He'll also be allowed to trim back some red tape and get stricter rules on migration for future new eu member states.

This will be enough for him to look like he got the eu to bend to his will and comfortably win the referendum. The media will be behind him, the business community will be behind him, as will anyone with a scrap of sense.

The only people who wont be behind him are the racist thickos of kent and essex. And I doubt many of those will bother to vote anyway.

My prediction is 65% yes, 35% no with a 55% turnout.

[eFestivals]

Why does what Farage thinks matter? He's unelected and the leadership debacle made him look daft even in the eyes of his own supporters.

like it or not, his party got (approx) 3.5M votes, supposedly around the EU issue.

In reality it was much more about immigration, and where the EU is an almost-irrelevant part of the numbers of new immigrants as it's pretty much balanced by UK nationals going into the EU. Any 'surge' in immigration is really from outside the EU - despite new rules brought in by the tories - and they're doing fuck all about changing that despite all the noise the tories make about immigration.

If we're going to have a result that settles this issue, then those people will need to feel that the whole thing hasn't been a stitch-up - and that's why stuff like the choice of which franchise to use gets to be important.

The wording of the question is less of a stitch-up issue, as it's not possible to play that one entirely evenly, because one side is always favoured by the wording. While Farage might not like Cameron's choice, kippers are going to have to lump that one.

I don't think any concessions Cameron achieves will make a blind bit of difference at this point. People have made their minds up already whether they want to be in or out I think.

I'd say 50% of the electorate don't pay enough attention to know what's going on, and will take their cue (if they're going to take anyone's cue) from their PM telling them what a great deal he's got for them.

It might well be the case that Dave's spin to those in this 50% group who can be swayed will be the difference between a win and a loss.

I'd prefer that the choice was made by fully-informed people, but i don't think it's possible for anyone to be fully informed over such a complex issue and where whichever choice is made where things lead to is uncertain.

At the end of the day I think the best anyone will be able to do is to support the bigger vision around their particular choice. There's good and bad from either option, and it's a matter of weighing up as best you're able which one works for the best overall.

[mjsell]

So, Chicken Dave plans to have the ref by the end of 2017.

While I don't really want the ref, I accept that the majority of the country do - and so that's a good reason to have it, as long as the country accepts whatever the result is and doesn't do the Scottish thing of wanting neverendums. Its called 'democracy'.

Firstly, the question is to be phrased in the way that the positive 'yes' is for remaining in the EU. Farage has thrown his toys out of the pram, believing that his own side should have the advantage of being 'the positive side'.

I would have to say that I am against any form of referendum.. but that comes from a wholly undemocratic standpoint of worrying that a lot of people won't look into the facts regarding the subject and simply vote to leave due to a deluded illusion of grandeur as a nation mixed with deep lying racial discrimination and ignorance.

My one hope is that if the major parties are against leaving Europe then the mass media (Murdoch) will side with this standpoint heavily and thus influence the masses much like in the general election. Actually, thinking about it, surely Murdoch would be against leaving the EU from a business perspective no matter who supports an exit.

Also your point regarding the positive 'yes' side: was the Scottish indy ref not a positive to leave? I have to say I don't actually know this.

Edited May 28, 2015 by mjsell

[MrZigster]

I was thinking yesterday that the hoo ha over dropping of opposition to The Human Rights thing in the QS is an irrelevance if we do drop out of Europe.

It's surely not going to be a straight "In or Out" vote though is it?

[eFestivals]

My understanding is it looks like the eu will offer an alternative to cameron to the "ever closer union" part of the treaty of rome, which would be enough for him to come back "victorious" (though it would require a treaty change).

Nah. While we're signed up to 'ever closer union' it only happens via new treaties anyway - so Dave needs nothing here.

He'll also be allowed to trim back some red tape and get stricter rules on migration for future new eu member states.

Again, this is a nothing. New EU member states will require new treaties, so Dave needs nothing now for this.

This will be enough for him to look like he got the eu to bend to his will and comfortably win the referendum. The media will be behind him, the business community will be behind him, as will anyone with a scrap of sense.

He'll get some nice noises out the EU, but no actual changes. The best it will get is for them to give him 'permission' to do what the EU has little or no control over anyway (such as benefit rules, where the UK can do almost anything as long as the wording of the changed laws is done within certain parameters)

The only people who wont be behind him are the racist thickos of kent and essex. And I doubt many of those will bother to vote anyway.

My prediction is 65% yes, 35% no with a 55% turnout.

Hmmm, if turnout is that low I reckon 'out' might win.

The EU elections last year got to show that kippers are motivated to go and vote. It's the 'ins' turnout which will win or lose it, I reckon.

[eFestivals]

I would have to say that I am against any form of referendum.. but that comes from a wholly undemocratic standpoint of worrying that a lot of people won't look into the facts regarding the subject and simply vote to leave due to a deluded illusion of grandeur as a nation mixed with deep lying racial discrimination and ignorance.

yep, I'm in much the same place as you.

However, I do think, given the noise from the out-ers, that it's better if the issue can be settled. My worry is that a referendum won't actually settle it.

My one hope is that if the major parties are against leaving Europe then the mass media (Murdoch) will side with this standpoint heavily and thus influence the masses much like in the general election. Actually, thinking about it, surely Murdoch would be against leaving the EU from a business perspective no matter who supports an exit.

Murdoch is likely to support out, as he's been anti-EU all the way thru.

For someone like him, he fears the long arm of the EU stopping him from taking the piss. Just as the latest example, there's starting to be moves for a common corp tax rate* across the EU, which he's definitely not want.

(* more likely in the short term is a range that corp tax will have to fall within - with the likes of Ireland the ones to get knobbled by it first).

Also your point regarding the positive 'yes' side: was the Scottish indy ref not a positive to leave? I have to say I don't actually know this.

Yep, the indy side had the advantage of being on the positive side of the question - and stuff like that does make a difference, because we're all sheep-like to some extent.

Absolutely every factor was to the SNP's advantage with the indyref, and they still couldn't win.

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Nah. While we're signed up to 'ever closer union' it only happens via new treaties anyway - so Dave needs nothing here.

Again, this is a nothing. New EU member states will require new treaties, so Dave needs nothing now for this.

He'll get some nice noises out the EU, but no actual changes. The best it will get is for them to give him 'permission' to do what the EU has little or no control over anyway (such as benefit rules, where the UK can do almost anything as long as the wording of the changed laws is done within certain parameters)

Hmmm, if turnout is that low I reckon 'out' might win.

The EU elections last year got to show that kippers are motivated to go and vote. It's the 'ins' turnout which will win or lose it, I reckon.

Yep I agree that those things he will "get" are pretty inconsequential, but I think it will be enough for him to claim he's come away from the eu with a result. So long as people perceive that he can get the eu to change the rules I think they will be appeased.

How many people will look in to this beyond what they read in the sun and the daily mail? A few front page triumphant headlines staggered throughout the year will be enough.

My only concern is that the age group that are most likely to vote are the older generation. And I have seen a few surveys which show they are the group who are most likely to vote for us to leave.

[Spindles]

I'm obviously not as confident as others that it would be a vote to stay. When I talk to people they rarely have any idea about what membership of the EU brings that benefits us but are able to parrot the oft repeated negatives that sections of the media are all too keen to repeat.

[kaosmark2]

My only concern is that the age group that are most likely to vote are the older generation. And I have seen a few surveys which show they are the group who are most likely to vote for us to leave.

Which is incredibly bizarre, as they're the ones least likely to be looking for work, and most likely to be wanting to fuck off abroad to Europe easily.

[eFestivals]

Yep I agree that those things he will "get" are pretty inconsequential, but I think it will be enough for him to claim he's come away from the eu with a result.

he's not going to come back and say "I'm a failure", is he?

My only concern is that the age group that are most likely to vote are the older generation. And I have seen a few surveys which show they are the group who are most likely to vote for us to leave.

While the oldies might well hold the key for which way the votes goes, I don't think they're as fixed to 'out' as some things suggest.

It's a bit different to the Scottish referendum in that they don't have a personal stake in the result (as older Scots do with their pensions). They'll at least be more open to persuasion because of that, I'd say.

[lost]

I think we will get a yes vote similar to the Scottish voting to stay in the union. The beeb generally supports the status quo so will be behind it also most big businesses obviously like the large trading block and pool of cheap workers to pick from so they will make noises in support.

I don't think we will get any big treaty changes because that may trigger referendums in other countries.. I think the Tories will try to stem some of the public outcry on foreigners getting benefits by cutting or restricting them for all I.e Making tax credits contributory based and limiting child benefit to one or two kids.

[eFestivals]

I'm obviously not as confident as others that it would be a vote to stay. When I talk to people they rarely have any idea about what membership of the EU brings that benefits us but are able to parrot the oft repeated negatives that sections of the media are all too keen to repeat.

I'm not particularly confident either, tho more-recent polls have shown that support for staying in is growing and not shrinking, so i'm keeping my fingers crossed that's how it really is.

The main media is the BBC. They'll be government-supportive.

National newspapers are a bit more unpredictable, tho I suspect they won't be majorly hostile just on the basis of it being a tory govt.

[GlastoSimon]

I can't see turnout being as low as 55%.

I think a lot will see it as quite an important vote, and whilst numbers might not be as high as the Indy ref, certainly think turnout will be closer to those numbers than 55%.

EDIT: But as Neil says, based on the Euro elections a low turnout probably = out unfortunately.

Edited May 28, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[mjsell]

yep, I'm in much the same place as you.

However, I do think, given the noise from the out-ers, that it's better if the issue can be settled. My worry is that a referendum won't actually settle it.

Murdoch is likely to support out, as he's been anti-EU all the way thru.

For someone like him, he fears the long arm of the EU stopping him from taking the piss. Just as the latest example, there's starting to be moves for a common corp tax rate* across the EU, which he's definitely not want.

(* more likely in the short term is a range that corp tax will have to fall within - with the likes of Ireland the ones to get knobbled by it first).

Yep, the indy side had the advantage of being on the positive side of the question - and stuff like that does make a difference, because we're all sheep-like to some extent.

Absolutely every factor was to the SNP's advantage with the indyref, and they still couldn't win.

Ah yes I hadn't thought of corporation tax changes or restrictions on press coming from the EU. I had just assumed because the likes of Sky is multinational across various European countries they would want it to stay as it was - although the benefits of European integration is probably far lessened for the press and media industries. I know the company that I work for (construction industry) would struggle far far more.

I do believe that when it really comes down to the wire - like with the Scottish referendum, people are ingrained to distrust/fear change - especially if there are elements of the unknown regarding what would happen (such as the worries surrounding currency and EU membership in Scotland) - if businesses/media hammer home these elements of unknown then the undecided people will (hopefully) naturally sway towards continuity

[Spindles]

It is something that people have been banging on for about for decades, clearly there are plenty of people who are very passionate about their belief that we should leave, hell it was tearing the Tory party apart back in the early 90s (and I guess before, but I was too young to be paying attention).

I do think that a vocal minority of euro sceptics have achieved alot by finally getting it to this point when it is something that, if not guided by the media the majority would not care that much about.

[Tigerdragon]

I read some very interesting points by Tony Benn, who I believe was very anti-europe for a couple of reasons.

1) It no doubt favours the bigger economies and bigger countries in many ways. They remain culturally dominant, while those that leave their own countries are expected to be willingly assimilated by a huge number of their neighbours. It's a more subtle hegemony but not far difference from the big-country bullying of pre EU-Europe.

2) This might sound like a cliche because it is said so often unthinkingly, but it does mean that the people at Westminster are not the be-all and end-all and the impact this has on our democracy - if you believe we have one anyway - needs to be thought about. Does accepting an unelected power-base mean we've given up on democracy? Has anyone seen some of the god-awful laws they pass there?

I haven't decided yet, and I think staying undecided as long as possible is the healthiest way to come to a conclusion that takes into account as many facts as possible. But clearly this is not a clear cut debate, and very good objections to the EU appear from both the left and the right (as well as many good reasons to stay, of course). But I find those on the left who unthinkingly support the EU just as worrying as the morons on the right who blurt out the same, unthought out slogans to justify leaving. It probably means this will be another debate won by the person who looks nicest and speaks best, which just isn't a healthy pattern to see keep occurring.

[eFestivals]

I read some very interesting points by Tony Benn, who I believe was very anti-europe for a couple of reasons.

I love Tony, but his objections boiled down to a very Stalinist "socialism in one country" idea. It might have been appropriate in 1975, but I'd say we're way past that in today's globalised world.

2) This might sound like a cliche because it is said so often unthinkingly, but it does mean that the people at Westminster are not the be-all and end-all and the impact this has on our democracy - if you believe we have one anyway - needs to be thought about. Does accepting an unelected power-base mean we've given up on democracy? Has anyone seen some of the god-awful laws they pass there?

The "god-awful laws they pass" where?

And what "unelected power-base"?

The EU set-up is just about a mirror for the UK's democractic set-up. All this guff about "unelected" or "undemocratic" is just that. The only way it could be more democratic wo0uld be if it reformed itself in the way the UK definitely seems to not want, as a political union.

I haven't decided yet, and I think staying undecided as long as possible is the healthiest way to come to a conclusion that takes into account as many facts as possible. But clearly this is not a clear cut debate, and very good objections to the EU appear from both the left and the right (as well as many good reasons to stay, of course). But I find those on the left who unthinkingly support the EU just as worrying as the morons on the right who blurt out the same, unthought out slogans to justify leaving. It probably means this will be another debate won by the person who looks nicest and speaks best, which just isn't a healthy pattern to see keep occurring.

I don't think anyone thinks the EU is perfect, but its worth remembering just the same applies with our own governance.

If we want better EU we need to work with the members of the EU to achieve that. There's nothing different about trying to change the UK.

What we shouldn't be doing is trying to hold a knife to the other member's throats to say "if you don't do what we say we'll try to fuck it all up for you" - not with something we willingly signed up to, begged them to have us.

We should try to win the argument within the group and not try to force things with ultimatums..

Unfortunately, that's how we've always done it. The UK has the best deal and the greatest number of opt-outs of all EU members and it's still not good enough for us.

Really, the EU should just tell us to fuck off.

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

I'm going to avoid daily updates to this thread (if I can help it).

My points

- A Brexit would be bad for Britain

- Cameron knows this

- Merkel knows this

- Most or all of the EU teams know this

- Britain needs the EU market

- the EU needs the British market, British waters, British net contribution

- The Germans quite like having Britain as a balance to their spendyspendy French best friends

Merkel and others know of the rise of UK EU skepticism (UKIP are the 3rd largest UK party by vote) and know a good IN vote should sort that out.

Merkel is a seasoned politician, she is a wily old bird. She knows about alliances. She knows about public opinion. She knows about political "stances". She knows not to take this too personally.

She and Cameron know she has to play hardball for a while. If she gives in too much too early she'll appear weak domestically and the Eurosceptic British right will raise the threshold for demands.

- So she'll pretend to play hardball-ish.

- Cameron will pretend to play hardball-sih.

- At the last minute after months of "not blinking" they'll each blink with a compromise each declares "in Europe's interest" and "the best deal possible".

A lot of the hysterics you'll be commenting on over the next few months are pretend issues and issues the leaders are running to blow steam.

- It's not like the SNP referendum. The SNP genuinely wanted out, so the campaign was "genuine" from the SNP. But Cameron genuinely wants to say in, so his campaign is only for leverage and the leverage won't be enacted until (by definition) minute 59 of the 11th hour.

So for the most part it's a big farce. The detail and "reality" will come down to individual agreements for reform but ultimately Cameron and the EU will put a deal down that the British public WILL VOTE YES ON and that will be that for UKIP.

It's just my reading of the situation and my prediction.

[pink_triangle]

It will be the same as when the eu demanded more money from the UK. Gideon used smoke and mirrors to pretend he had negotiated a great deal. We will get minor changes and Britain will follows the lead of the majority of politicians and vote yes.