the EU referendum

[eFestivals]

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.

what you mean is: the EU asked the UK to pay the dues we'd agreed to pay using rules we'd agreed to.

And you said Gideon was spinning it?

[pink_triangle]

what you mean is: the EU asked the UK to pay the dues we'd agreed to pay using rules we'd agreed to.

And you said Gideon was spinning it?

That was my point the eu asked us to pay up and Gideon tried to pretend he had negotiated a super deal to pay less. Something similar will happen with the eu.

[eFestivals]

- It's not like the SNP referendum. The SNP genuinely wanted out, so the campaign was "genuine" from the SNP.

snigger.

Yeah, that'll be why they had such a solid plan, didn't want devo-max on the ballot, and are so keen for FFA.

And you think the SNP are playing the UK, and well?

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That was my point the eu asked us to pay up and Gideon tried to pretend he had negotiated a super deal to pay less. Something similar will happen with the eu.

Even the bit about "the eu asked us to pay up" is spin.

We pay up the EU all the time, on exactly the same basis, and yet we never hear about all of the other times "the eu asked us to pay up".

I don't disagree that everything around the EU ref is similar, but there's actually far more substance around the EU ref because there is a genuine alternative on offer for us to choose (not that I want us to), when there was no escape from the terms we'd agreed to pay to the EU.

At the end of the day, any PM - even Farage, if it were him - would have their own objective around the EU ref (in or out) and would play things towards that objective. If that's a scam, everything is scam.

[viberunner]

Yeah, that'll be why they had such a solid plan, didn't want devo-max on the ballot, and are so keen for FFA.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100286847/why-cameron-was-right-not-to-include-devo-max-on-the-scottish-referendum-ballot/

But let's not turn this to the Indy Question subthread. To suggest Salmond secretly wanted to say in the UK is surely a stretch even for you? (If it's not, lets do this in the Indy thread).

[kaosmark2]

And what "unelected power-base"?

Merkel has more influence over the EU parliament than all MEPs put together. She wasn't elected to be a representative of the European parliament. Ditto Cameron.

I don't like the excessive impact heads of state have compared to MEPs. Not that I think we should leave the EU because of it.

[eFestivals]

Merkel has more influence over the EU parliament than all MEPs put together. She wasn't elected to be a representative of the European parliament. Ditto Cameron.

I don't like the excessive impact heads of state have compared to MEPs. Not that I think we should leave the EU because of it.

Cameron has more influence over the UK parliament than all MPs put together. He wasn't elected to be a representative of the UK parliament.

(see what I did there? )

The heads of govt (the 'European Council') in the EU is just the same as the Cabinet in the UK. No different at all.

The 'cabinet' proposes and drafts legislation, the parliament (usually) nods it thru.

As for Merkel seemingly occupying the 'PM' equivalent position within the EU, well, can you suggest a more competent elected leader within Europe to take over the position?

History gets to show, as well, that the EU is quite willing and able to share that 'senior' position around, and it does - and as a natural consequence it means the EU tends to be led by the better politicians (if such a thing really exists) rather than the fruitcakes who tend to get found out quite quickly.

For me, the over-riding Good Thing about the EU is that there's safety in numbers, which tends to keep the more dangerous ideas away. Whenever an individual country is going thru some sort of crisis the majority of the other member states will be in a sensible-enough place to not allow the place in crisis too much power or influence to do bad things.

Politics is never going to be the perfection we crave, and we need to recognise and re-enforce the good bits, not throw them away.

The central EU idea of partnership and collaboration is spot on. It's always going to be a better thing than out and out competition which is a race to the bottom at best, and death and destruction at worst.

The rest? Well, get back to me when the UK has perfected itself.

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[bunique]

I am also not as confident of a Yes as some are here. I think in many quarters, xenophobia will win out over any talk of benefits to business (and therefore the workforce).

[kaosmark2]

Cameron has more influence over the UK parliament than all MPs put together. He wasn't elected to be a representative of the UK parliament.

(see what I did there? )

The heads of govt (the 'European Council') in the EU is just the same as the Cabinet in the UK. No different at all.

The 'cabinet' proposes and drafts legislation, the parliament (usually) nods it thru.

As for Merkel seemingly occupying the 'PM' equivalent position within the EU, well, can you suggest a more competent elected leader within Europe to take over the position?

History gets to show, as well, that the EU is quite willing and able to share that 'senior' position around, and it does - and as a natural consequence it means the EU tends to be led by the better politicians (if such a thing really exists) rather than the fruitcakes who tend to get found out quite quickly.

For me, the over-riding Good Thing about the EU is that there's safety in numbers, which tends to keep the more dangerous ideas away. Whenever an individual country is going thru some sort of crisis the majority of the other member states will be in a sensible-enough place to not allow the place in crisis too much power or influence to do bad things.

Politics is never going to be the perfection we crave, and we need to recognise and re-enforce the good bits, not throw them away.

The central EU idea of partnership and collaboration is spot on. It's always going to be a better thing than out and out competition which is a race to the bottom at best, and death and destruction at worst.

The rest? Well, get back to me when the UK has perfected itself.

I agree with everything except the analogy.

Cameron is elected by the citizens of the UK (well Witney) to be a MP - to represent people in the UK parliament - the factor of prime minister is a role he can take as a MP.

Cameron or Merkel are not MEPs.

To give an analogy that better represents my issue with the EU:

We have locally elected councillors. Imagine if the leaders of all the councils in the UK just negotiated and decided deals for the UK - overriding the decisions by MPs - the people actually elected to represent us on that scale.

MEPs don't really have enough influence.

[eFestivals]

I agree with everything except the analogy.

Cameron is elected by the citizens of the UK (well Witney) to be a MP - to represent people in the UK parliament - the factor of prime minister is a role he can take as a MP.

Cameron or Merkel are not MEPs.

To give an analogy that better represents my issue with the EU:

We have locally elected councillors. Imagine if the leaders of all the councils in the UK just negotiated and decided deals for the UK - overriding the decisions by MPs - the people actually elected to represent us on that scale.

MEPs don't really have enough influence.

That would require a political union. How things are now is the result of the UK (and maybe others) not wanting political union.

Currently, what happens in the EU is with the explicit agreement of every sovereign member state. That changes if you have the EU itself rather than its members making the policies.

Edited May 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[Spindles]

My concern is also for the damage that an exit by a nation as economically important as ours would have to the union itself. I can't help thinking that some of the interests who are lobbying behind the scenes for an exit are less concerned about the welfare of our nation, more concerned with the welfare of other nations outside the union and how they would benefit from a weakened/fractured EU and worse any domino effect that such a major exit could inspire.

[Comfy Bean]

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

I`ll go 61 / 39 with the result never really in doubt. Think the turnout could nudge 60%

In Scotland it will be a wider margin, I`ll guess 70 / 30 YES

I never got round to getting a YES badge or I would have been happy to pass it on to you sir.

Edited May 28, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

Nailed it VR - close thread ?

[eFestivals]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

Nailed it VR - close thread ?

I'd say you're as detached from opinion on this as Dave was when he thought the indyref would be an easy win.

If the ins win UKIP won't be going anywhere, just as the SNP didn't evaporate when they lost the indyref.

[viberunner]

I'd say you're as detached from opinion on this as Dave was when he thought the indyref would be an easy win.

I know you're local to Telepathic Heights, but unless you can show me a statement or inference he thought the Indy Ref would be an easy win.... ?

The Indy Ref - against a strong and well-organised national party with a lot of boots on the ground - were unable to overcome the inertia of the status quo.

[eFestivals]

I know you're local to Telepathic Heights, but unless you can show me a statement or inference he thought the Indy Ref would be an easy win.... ?

The Indy Ref - against a strong and well-organised national party with a lot of boots on the ground - were unable to overcome the inertia of the status quo.

When the idea of an indyref between 2011 and 2016 was first formally floated, even the SNP thought it would be an easy win for 'the union'. How did you miss it?

It's the exact reason why Salmond wanted a devo-max option on the ballot despite it not having been part of the SNP's elected-mandate (it wasn't part of their manifesto) because he felt (back in 2011) he could win that side of things, but never an indy vote.

In case you've missed it, UKIP have made the step-up in the last year to being "a strong and well-organised national party with a lot of boots on the ground", where before there was only really hot air from Farage. And they're obsessive people, who will work hard at it.

They're of course not as well supported as the SNP were at the start of the indie ref, but I reckon right now plenty of out-ers will be being drawn towards UKIP just on the basis that they're the natural party of out, just as the SNP were the natural party of indy.

And just as with the SNP around the indyref, the policies of the party cease to matter as much against the bigger question being asked, so for the moment plenty of out-ers will be able to put aside any dislike or Farage or UKIPs other policies.

The dislike of Farage & other policies will lessen that affect (just as there was a similar problem around Salmond in Scotland, tho to a lesser extent. His resignation had some feel they now able to support the SNP) which is why there was that attempted coup within UKIP a few weeks ago, but it also goes to show that kippers are on their game and thinking much further ahead than most are at the moment.

There's much more of the same thing going on around the EUref than you're believing.

[eFestivals]

BTW, viberunner, without this being any part of a Scottish indie debate...

I reckon Sturgeon is being a bit cocky about how Scotland will vote in the EUref. She's perhaps probably right in thinking it will vote to stay in (not that Scotland counts for anything in the vote, but that's a different matter), but I think she might be surprised at the number of out-ers.

In the EU elections last year, 10% in Scotland voted UKIP - when they had the full choice of other parties too. In the EUref, it's a binary choice.

Also, Scotland's "no more immigration" proportion is pretty similar to the UK average (around 70%), tho with a difference in how important an issue that is compared to other places. It seems to be the case that the "importance" side of the view is somewhat related to the amount of visible immigration in an area, so it's not surprising it's a lesser issue in Scotland.

However, it unavoidably becomes a major issue of the EUref, so the fact of differing importance isn't going to make much difference to the proportions who vote for out in all corners of the UK, where immigration is the deciding factor of which way to vote.

Edited May 29, 2015 by eFestivals

[mjsell]

BTW, viberunner, without this being any part of a Scottish indie debate...

I reckon Sturgeon is being a bit cocky about how Scotland will vote in the EUref. She's perhaps probably right in thinking it will vote to stay in (not that Scotland counts for anything in the vote, but that's a different matter), but I think she might be surprised at the number of out-ers.

I do think that the SNP have overinflated sense of their self-worth currently. Even they have been caught up in the shitstorm rise in support over the past couple of months to believe they are Scotland.

Excuse my ignorance but what role has the Scotland vote got in an EU ref? you say it counts for nothing? how so?

Got to say I've learnt a lot from this thread in regards to this topic

[eFestivals]

Excuse my ignorance but what role has the Scotland vote got in an EU ref? you say it counts for nothing? how so?

It's a UK-wide vote. Scotland as a distinct entity plays no part in the EUref.

Sturgeon has suggested demanded that Scotland does have a role. She's said that to leave the EU each constituent 'nation' of the UK should have to vote for out, so that the vote in England can't force Scotland out.

While I can understand why a nationalist would want things that way, it's full-on disrespect for the result of the indyref, where Scotland voted for such things to be decided on a UK basis. The EU classes as "foriegn policy" which has always been excluded from any version of "home rule", "devo-max", "a federal UK" or any other way of administering a non-indy Scotland.

Edited May 29, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

I reckon Sturgeon is being a bit cocky about how Scotland will vote in the EUref. She's perhaps probably right in thinking it will vote to stay in (not that Scotland counts for anything in the vote, but that's a different matter), but I think she might be surprised at the number of out-ers.

There is and always has been a small-c sense of conservatism here. The ConKIP parties got just under 17% of the vote at the election and there are some very weird sectarian groups (IRA graffiti is far from rare, a pub in Partick had large Britain First banners for a NO vote, Orange Marches, etc.) so nobody's pretending it's exclusively Clement Attlee meets William Wallace.

I'm sure they'll be a sizable NO vote, and I'm sure it'll be smaller than England's NO vote. But time will tell.

[viberunner]

I do think that the SNP have overinflated sense of their self-worth currently. Even they have been caught up in the shitstorm rise in support over the past couple of months to believe they are Scotland.

Excuse my ignorance but what role has the Scotland vote got in an EU ref? you say it counts for nothing? how so?

The SNP will have to watch-out for taking the electorate for granted, but you're quite "new" to the SNP right?

They've had 70 years in the electoral wilderness, at least at Westminster with seats split mainly between three main parties, then post-Poll Tax between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Scottish Parliament came into being in 1999 and there have been four governments (Labour/Dems, Labour/Dem, SNP minority, SNP majority). Some of the wards the SNP have taken have been Labour (MP, Councillor, then MEP) for decades.

Labour (in my view, in the view of many) treated Scottish wards as a resource not a treasure. "Old Labour corruption" is a well worn phrase including many from Labour backgrounds. Even with the best will in the world generations of political stagnation will do that.

The SNP are all-too-well-aware of their newcomer status and have not had the time to settle in to a period of expectations of the electorate. I agree it is a potential risk and a risk for the future, but I don't think we're there yet. Yes they're giddy with getting over 50 MPs and being the third largest party in Westminster. It used to be they had three or four seats down there! So please don't begrudge them their honeymoon period... it has been a long time coming... but there are long-term questions about political plurality I do agree with that.

There's a Scottish Parliament due in 2016. Even if the SNP win outright again as a PR system there will still be plenty of opposition parties and voices: Labour, LIb Dem, Tory, and probably one two two from UKIP, Green, Independent, etc.

As for the it doesn't count for "anything" as it's a small section of the overall population, though turnout is slightly higher here. At the General Election there were 30,691,680 valid votes cast of which 2,910,465 were cast in Scotland so 9.48% to two decimal places. (I was going to say 9.5% but that would have started World War Three). So, basically 10% of the electorate (in round figures*).

(* I'm half expecting Neil to ball-gag me and strap me to the front of a V-8 Interceptor for saying that)

[viberunner]

While I can understand why a nationalist would want things that way, it's full-on disrespect for the result of the indyref, where Scotland voted for such things to be decided on a UK basis.

But it's also recognising that Scotland has overwhelmingly given a Westminster mandate to a party that is the very definition of "not business as usual".

As you said Devo Max would have been a popular option. Cameron refused to let it on the paper but it was in effect promised in the late days off the NO campaign.

Having input in the national stage is surely part of a Devo Max arrangment? A good place to start?

There's also the issue the 2nd and 3rd main parties are involved in numerous cross-bench discussions and opinion-seeking. That has always been true even in the days of very large majorities.

[kaosmark2]

but you're quite "new" to the SNP right?

Wow. Someone using a phrase that's even more patronising than anything Neil's come out with.

[viberunner]

Because all people are equally familiar with the histories of all political parties in all parts of the world?

[kaosmark2]

Because all people are equally familiar with the histories of all political parties in all parts of the world?

People "new" to most parties don't need to go through an indoctrination procedure.

Edited May 29, 2015 by kaosmark2