Are we In or Out?

[siblin]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

As far as democracy goes, things can be more-democratic all the way down to referendums for all laws, but would such 'improvements' actually improve things? I'm not sure. Its quite possibly the case that we get more of what we want precisely because we're not given every opportunity to influence the 'what we want' directly.

Yeah I worry about this.  Really our politicians should be better at running the country than we are which is why we give them that job (I appreciate this isn't always the case!).  Having a referendum for everything could be like running the country by 5-live phone in or daily mail online vote.

To quote men in black of all things - "A person is clever, people are dumb".  (I'm sure that was originally lifted from Dune)

[CHRLY]

1 hour ago, BLTN said:

You "doubt" but that is no more or less speculative than anything I said. 

My comment was based on the fact of how much the EU actually blocks. And even so, as someone said earlier, what makes our ideas better than anyone else's?

[august1]

are we human or are we dancer?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, august1 said:

are we human or are we dancer?

I don't think shit american bands get a vote.

I'm not sure if that's because they're shit or because they're american, tho. Can anyone tell me?

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Apologies if already posted. It probably doesn't stack up numbers-wise, but it does have a certain irony.

Quote

 

Voters in Scotland could keep England inside the European Union against its will in this month's referendum, according to polling experts.

Although the Leave side has been rapidly gaining ground on Remain in UK-wide polls ahead of the 23 June referendum, with some even showing the Leave side to be ahead, in Scotland alone the Remain side has been consistently and decisively ahead throughout the campaign.

The difference in opinion north and south of the border, and the prospect of Scotland being forced to leave the EU by votes in England where the population is 10 times larger, has sparked much talk of a second Scottish independence referendum.

Prime minister David Cameron admitted this week that he's worried about exactly that, adding: "You don't strengthen your country by leading to its breakup."

However, according to polling experts, a Leave victory in England of as much as 52.5% could be actually be overturned by what is likely to be an overwhelming Remain victory in Scotland – saving the UK's EU membership and Cameron's job in the process, but possibly causing a whole new type of constitutional crisis.

 

This Is How Scotland Could Keep England In...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/this-is-how-scotland-could-keep-england-in-the-european-unio

[eFestivals]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

Apologies if already posted. It probably doesn't stack up numbers-wise, but it does have a certain irony.

yep, it'll make St Nicola a hypocritical tit.

Again.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Scotland was a left-leaning, pro European sort of place before Sturgeon appeared and will probably continue to be so after she's gone.

Also, the story I posted doesn't really have anything to do with her. It would have probably been the same back when Jack McConnell was in charge.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Scotland was a left-leaning, pro European sort of place

was? when? If Scotland is that now, so is the rest of the UK.

Scotland has just proven that left or right doesn't make any difference to where the votes goes. It's all about identity - which is as full-on me-me-me as it gets.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Also, the story I posted doesn't really have anything to do with her. It would have probably been the same back when Jack McConnell was in charge.

True. A country with negligible levels of immigration is unlikely to have a big issue with immigration.

Meanwhile, a country that's population has increased by more than the population of Scotland in the last 15 years while it's infrastructure & housing hasn't been upgraded to match is likely to see and feel the effects of immigration in a way that Scotland doesn't.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

was? when? If Scotland is that now, so is the rest of the UK.

Scotland has just proven that left or right doesn't make any difference to where the votes goes. It's all about identity - which is as full-on me-me-me as it gets.

So, essentially, no matter who Scotland votes for, you're going to be cynical of the motives of the population. It's consistently voted for left or centre left parties since the eighties, so I presume that when Labour were in power the votes were equally self-interested.  Ergo, we cannae win.

now, eFestivals said:

True. A country with negligable levels of immigration is unlikely to have a big issue with immigration.

 

It could probably do with more. It's the immigrants that are racist against us by not wanting to come here.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

So, essentially, no matter who Scotland votes for, you're going to be cynical of the motives of the population. It's consistently voted for left or centre left parties since the eighties, so I presume that when Labour were in power the votes were equally self-interested.  Ergo, we cannae win.

Yep, it's voted left, but lived and benefited from something different.

It currently has a solid Blairite as leader, who's been voted in by people who spend much of their time banging on about the evils of Blair and 'red tories'. It's certainly NOT the claims made of it.

Votes are always self-interested. This is why stuff happens such as a population demands more tax is raised to pay for the things the country says it wants (perhaps also with a line about anti-austerity too), but when they have the opportunity to pay more taxes and reverse austerity reasons are suddenly found for why its a bad idea. That's Scotland in May 2015 vs May 2016.

Social attitudes surveying gets to show that Scottish attitudes are barely different to the rest of the UK. The difference is the self-serving narratives around them.

 

Quote

now, eFestivals said:

It could probably do with more. It's the immigrants that are racist against us by not wanting to come here.

Yep, Scotland probably needs more ... but the shit weather has nothing to do with where people from southern climes wish to live, just racism? :

Social attitudes surveys shows that Scotland has very little difference in its attitudes towards immigration than England, but it does has different attitudes towards the effects of immigration - because it's just not having any meaningful effects from immigration.

The Scottish population is near enough static, which means no impact onto housing availability or prices, no problems getting school places, no longer waits to see a doc, no greater competition for jobs, etc, etc, etc. The population in England has been rising rapidly.

I'm well aware that those effects of migration can be mitigated by building more housing, schools, hospitals, etc - but the fact is, that hasn't happened by anywhere near enough, and so plenty of people are feeling those pressures.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[CaledonianGonzo]

Sorry - in a bit of a rush, so can't reply at length.

Yeah - agree re. the SNP's tax position.  I think it'll backfire on them in the long run, though.  The decision not to increase the additional rate pissed off a lot of people.

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, Scotland probably needs more ... but the shit weather has nothing to do with where people from southern climes wish to live, just racism? :

This bit was - hopefully obviously - a joke.

But maybe worth noting the comparison with low-immigration areas of England (like Cumbria and Cornwall) being more likely to be pro-Brexit than areas with more immigration.

[eFestivals]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

The decision not to increase the additional rate pissed off a lot of people.

but funnily enough not by enough to make them vote for the party that would have them pay more tax.

That's pretty much the history of new labour in that line just there.

 

4 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

But maybe worth noting the comparison with low-immigration areas of England (like Cumbria and Cornwall) being more likely to be pro-Brexit than areas with more immigration.

Cornwall has a hugely disproportionate number of oldies, which is likely to be a part of things there. I don't know about Cumbria, but i suspect there might be some of that there too, tho it might be an exception. There's always exceptions.

What appears to be the case mostly tho is that the most strongly brexit areas are the areas around the towns and cities with large-scale immigration. The places that actually have the immigration are generally much more comfortable with it.

I reckon much of that 'rural europhobia' is driven by how the amount of immigration slaps them in the face (compared to what they normally see) when they visit those towns and cities. There's much less of that to effect people in Scotland where the non-white skins are less than 1/3rd the level of the UK average.

 

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Apologies if already posted. It probably doesn't stack up numbers-wise, but it does have a certain irony.

This Is How Scotland Could Keep England In...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/this-is-how-scotland-could-keep-england-in-the-european-unio

This would certainly vindicate the No argument that not only is Scotland better off in the UK but the UK is better off with Scotland in it.

[jeffie]

Interesting view

http://www.techinsider.io/jeremy-corbyn-social-media-strategy-more-sophisticated-than-you-think-2016-6

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, mcshed said:

This would certainly vindicate the No argument that not only is Scotland better off in the UK but the UK is better off with Scotland in it.

it would also blow away the myth that Scotland is only ever England's political poodle, and that there's a democratic deficit in Scotland.

What i'd enjoy the most is hearing the English nutters laying out the Sturgeon line, that one country has no right to alter the situation in another. That would be all the nutters together, while all the democrats are elsewhere.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, jeffie said:

Interesting view

http://www.techinsider.io/jeremy-corbyn-social-media-strategy-more-sophisticated-than-you-think-2016-6

what's sophisticated in deciding to follow a strategy where you can only reach 15% of the electorate at best while choosing to ignore all the others?

If sophisticated is deciding 5 years in advance to lose, he's there and on the money.

[Wagon]

It's nice to see so many rational people in one place! 

 

100% IN!!

[BLTN]

19 hours ago, siblin said:

I'm sure I remember voting in European parliament elections not so long ago?  

Or do you mean the ECHR which has no relation to this referendum and is basically in parallel to our supreme court?

Or do you mean the commission which is an executive arm (not a ratifying parliament) of one representative from each country proposed by the governments of each country? Governments who all must be, and i quote 

                           - EU membership criteria - European Commision

Or do you mean the council whose voting members are the heads of state of the same member countries. (see above).

The Lords, however is a mix of some appointed life-peers (who are never removed), some hereditary peers (who got their position because of daddy), and some Lords spiritual (who the anglican church picked for us).  

I didnt vote for the leading civil service positions in the UK, or who gets selected for each commons select committee.  Nor did i vote directly on who who gets to be prime minister.  Therefore I'm always confused by the "non-democratic" argument for leaving the EU.

http://www.economist.com/node/21550269 - this is worth a read

Again I will re-iterate that our system is hugely flawed. I just fear handing over more and more power to those who have less and less of a link to us and treat us like an EU collective state rather than as the UK. It's about taking the power back to the people and the EU is just an extra higher level which in my opinion we could do without. 

 

[BLTN]

18 hours ago, CHRLY said:

My comment was based on the fact of how much the EU actually blocks. And even so, as someone said earlier, what makes our ideas better than anyone else's?

It purely a fear of the future, right now we're better in but if you look historically at the methods of control governments have used then I fear that Europe is just a bigger and far worse one of those. 

[siblin]

2 minutes ago, BLTN said:

http://www.economist.com/node/21550269 - this is worth a read

Again I will re-iterate that our system is hugely flawed. I just fear handing over more and more power to those who have less and less of a link to us and treat us like an EU collective state rather than as the UK. It's about taking the power back to the people and the EU is just an extra higher level which in my opinion we could do without. 

 

I've already read it.  

It's unsurprising the Economist would edge toward eurosceptic given position as an economic liberalism paper (read neo-liberal), after all who does weak government benefit if not the private sector, and this article is largely commentary, opinion and conjecture.  Phrases such as "The Council of Ministers regards the parliament as a truculent adolescent" could be disregarded as having no references to back them up, however I'd be inclined to believe it - probably largely because the parliament has a number of nationalists and far-right wingers being deliberately disruptive.

And the one thing the article gets almost right is its conclusion, 

Quote

There is no neat solution to the problem of democracy in a system that is part intergovernmental and part federal. It is hard to argue that Brussels needs less direct democracy when it is acquiring more powers. EU business is now too demanding to be performed by part-timers

...

Legitimacy requires reforms at both national and European levels

...

For all its flaws, the European Parliament is here to stay.

.The answer isn't an Exit, the answer is making it work

[Junglist1981]

No matter the result, the referendum has already exposed a nasty underbelly of xenophobia in this country.  I'm not saying all leave voters are that way, but a very large proportion certainly are and I worry that we're already seeing a rise in openly xenophobic sentiment.

As an example, a lady in my office who I had previously thought to be alright was coming out with some horrible stuff this week. Loads of paranoid bullshit about how she hopes we leave because Muslims are coming over here to impregnate white women and spread Muslimism. I was dumbfounded. Had a little bit of a debate with her about it but got nowhere, and no one else in the room batted an eyelid. 

Putting aside the grand scheme of things for a moment, is waking up to bad news on Friday gonna spoil the festival a little? Gonna be lots of sad and worried people about, myself included. At least we'll get to spend all day drinking and dancing I suppose, rather than sitting at home watching news pictures of obnoxious smug politicians and the odd riot.

[siblin]

3 minutes ago, Junglist1981 said:

No matter the result, the referendum has already exposed a nasty underbelly of xenophobia in this country.  I'm not saying all leave voters are that way, but a very large proportion certainly are and I worry that we're already seeing a rise in openly xenophobic sentiment.

I've noticed this too and I'm disturbed.  Now the economic argument is largely settled, and the issue of sovereignty becomes a bit woolly, the discussion has moved toward immigration.  I'm not saying discussion on immigration is inherently racist, but it is usually inherently xenophobic.  

Recently many of the Leave campaigners have come up with "Well what happens if Turkey joins the EU"?  Well what if they do manage to meet the economic, political and democratic requirements to join, whats the problem?  Why are they any different from Serbia or Montenegro, or for that matter Bulgaria or Romania who have already joined?  Couldn't be anything to do with the fact they look a bit different could it? 

Economic migrants who move to a country (with a birth rate below 2) are not a drain on public services, they are a net contributor which is vitally important to support an increasing pension age population in the aftermath of an economic downturn.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, siblin said:

Recently many of the Leave campaigners have come up with "Well what happens if Turkey joins the EU"?  Well what if they do manage to meet the economic, political and democratic requirements to join, whats the problem?  Why are they any different from Serbia or Montenegro, or for that matter Bulgaria or Romania who have already joined?  Couldn't be anything to do with the fact they look a bit different could it? 

i don't doubt that last bit is some or all of it to some people, but i'd say with most people the initial trigger for their dislike is the fact of how Turkey is today, and they're not thinking it thru to realise those issues would have been addressed before membership.

 

[siblin]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

i don't doubt that last bit is some or all of it to some people, but i'd say with most people the initial trigger for their dislike is the fact of how Turkey is today, and they're not thinking it thru to realise those issues would have been addressed before membership.

 

Yeah and I'd agree with the view that theres still a lot of reform to be done in Turkey, but similar concerns exist for other candidates (and some of the more recent countries).

Sadly i dont think peoples motivations are for turkey to improve their human rights etc, but more the fear that millions of turks are all of a sudden going to arrive on the south coast.  In that respect sadly I think turkey gets a disproportionate amount of focus.

As you say, membership criteria mandate that Turkey would look very different were it to join, and much less motivation for people to leave (in fact it could end up being the next costa del sol full of british expats, shudder the thought)