The Politics Thread

[bobo the clown]

So have a referendum to find out.

[Prufrock]

you don't like the question because it's awkward. Do you accept that there are limits on what we should have referendums for? Or should we have one on everything?

Assuming you don't take the mental position that we should have them on everything, what do you think should be the criteria for deciding what we we do and don't have one for?

If a 'reasonable prospect of success' isn't a box which must be ticked, how do we distinguish things we should have them for, and things we shouldn't, beyond 'things Bobo would like to vote for?'.

How democratic.

[BWFC_Insane]

↑↑↑ Pru .... you are determined to pretend (????) to be dim about this arithmetic aren't you.

It's fair to presume that UKIP want a referendum .... 27.5%
The Tories have stated they will hold one if in power, albeit after trying to renegotiate the terms and many hoping they won't need to ... 24%.

That's over 51% committed to one.

Your presumption that every Labour supporter is pro Europe is staggeringly naive.

I do hope Maths wasn't a strong point in that education so expensively garnered.

I've said before ... by all means be non-democratic. Just realise that's what you are.

So any decision that isn't directly voted on makes it undemocratic?

I'm not so sure about that.

The problem is that the public are hardly in my view experts on the political, cultural and most crucially economic consequences of being in the EU or not.

Perhaps a referendum with a neutral group commissioned to produce the net benefits or otherwise of being members with full analysis and breakdown. Not a party political piece but the definitive and accepted analysis of being in the EU. It is a big ask to find such a group but I'd have thought there would be the requisite experts within academia in the variety of disciplines who could pull it together.

At least then it would be a vote based on facts rather than headlines.

[bobo the clown]

When there has been 40 years of erosion of the national standing, increases of Europe from 12 members to 28, when we move to co-determination of laws, when national sovereignty is attacked from all sides. This isn't small fry, it's huge and is persistent. No-one has ever asked this country (or any others for that matter) if they want a United States of Europe yet that's what the Eurocrats now openly state they are moving toward.

Or, & how about this one .... when the Governing party says "if there are any more changes in European law which affect our sovereignty we will ask the people their view " ... and there is, and they don't (Brown/Blair).

Or .... & now, here's thing, when parties committed to it garner 51%+ of a vote.

Cheeky, messy, little thing that voting nonsense isn't it !!




I'm old enough to have voted last time we were asked. That was to stay in, or leave, the EEC. An economic, trade based entity. It won (the Labour Party was anti .... acolytes such as Tony Benn remained avidly so). The scope of the project is enormously greater now. It's about time we were asked again.

[Worthy4England]

I'm happy for us to have a referendum - it's only right and proper.

It was interesting to hear that prominent Eurosceptic Hannan last night when he was interviewed and actively suggesting that our trade agreements would remain in place at no penalty to the UK. Bit of a leap of faith there Dan.

It will also give the opportunity for UKIP to answer some questions of their own

I'm not sure where anyone (certainly not me anyhow), said all our jobs depend on its existence. Nor that there'd be no wars in Europe - especially given that the two places Hobes quotes were not European Member states at the time they had wars. I certainly don't believe armeggeddon would occur by us not being in the EU. But no matter, facts are in short supply within the UKIP camp.

I will be delighted when they eventually get round to telling us

How much we will lose from lessening our bargaining power.

How many new Trade Agreements we will need in place, how long it will take us to put them in place, how much this will cost.

How much we will still pay to Europe to trade with it, with us sat on the outside (a la Norway, Switzerland etc.) and no influence at all over policy.

What they think the likely migration of businesses headquartered in the UK will be (if any)

They'll be able to explain how their "this is what it costs us per day" figure is made up - at the minute it's made up as follows.

1) 10% Fact - out net contributions to the EU

2) 20% Guess - their assessment of cost for CAP and CFP

3) 70% Pure Conjecture - their assessment of the cost of European Legislation on UK businesses and how much of it would just disappear if we weren't in the EU.

They quote the Qpen Europe Group for item number 3. Strangely enough, they missed out this bit from Open Europe.

“The two-year process to leave the EU gives the remainder EU the upper hand in any negotiation on new trade terms, with the UK being unable to take part in the final vote and the European Parliament having a veto. Those who say ‘let’s just leave’ don’t quite realise that the EU institutions may actually have an equally strong, if not stronger, say, over Brexit talks than if Britain seeks renegotiation from within the EU. This is not to say that a relatively favourable deal couldn’t be struck, but it will take time and no doubt come with a high transaction cost.”

[bobo the clown]

I don't disagree with much of that Worthy.

What may have changed last week was that there are decent sized rumps in most countries now who have an anti-what's happening now stance in many countries. It's always been put that there is only UKIP and the swivel-eyed Tories in the UK. OK, maybe the racist FN in France.

There is more than that and, should the UK start to renegotiate then they will either win concessions w(which lots of other nations will start wanting) or we'll get no-where, a national mood of feeling insulted ill then develop and we will exit at the referendum. By which time other countries will have sizable chunks who will be looking to do the same.

I don't want a return to national free-for-alls, I just want it to be an Economic, not a political, block.

[Hoboh]

↑↑↑ Pru .... you are determined to pretend (????) to be dim about this arithmetic aren't you.

It's fair to presume that UKIP want a referendum .... 27.5%
The Tories have stated they will hold one if in power, albeit after trying to renegotiate the terms and many hoping they won't need to ... 24%.

That's over 51% committed to one.

Your presumption that every Labour supporter is pro Europe is staggeringly naive.

I do hope Maths wasn't a strong point in that education so expensively garnered.

I've said before ... by all means be non-democratic. Just realise that's what you are.

So any decision that isn't directly voted on makes it undemocratic?

I'm not so sure about that.

The problem is that the public are hardly in my view experts on the political, cultural and most crucially economic consequences of being in the EU or not.
Perhaps a referendum with a neutral group commissioned to produce the net benefits or otherwise of being members with full analysis and breakdown. Not a party political piece but the definitive and accepted analysis of being in the EU. It is a big ask to find such a group but I'd have thought there would be the requisite experts within academia in the variety of disciplines who could pull it together.

At least then it would be a vote based on facts rather than headlines.

F*CKIN HELL!!!

The Elite have spoken, sorry peasants but we know best.

Your attitude sums up all thats wrong with the EU in one sentence.

Pru, your just a bad loser. Young, wet behind the ears, things not going your way, lash out
Bring back the birch.

[Hoboh]

I'm happy for us to have a referendum - it's only right and proper.

It was interesting to hear that prominent Eurosceptic Hannan last night when he was interviewed and actively suggesting that our trade agreements would remain in place at no penalty to the UK. Bit of a leap of faith there Dan.

It will also give the opportunity for UKIP to answer some questions of their own

I'm not sure where anyone (certainly not me anyhow), said all our jobs depend on its existence. Nor that there'd be no wars in Europe - especially given that the two places Hobes quotes were not European Member states at the time they had wars. I certainly don't believe armeggeddon would occur by us not being in the EU. But no matter, facts are in short supply within the UKIP camp.

I will be delighted when they eventually get round to telling us

How much we will lose from lessening our bargaining power.

How many new Trade Agreements we will need in place, how long it will take us to put them in place, how much this will cost.

How much we will still pay to Europe to trade with it, with us sat on the outside (a la Norway, Switzerland etc.) and no influence at all over policy.

What they think the likely migration of businesses headquartered in the UK will be (if any)

They'll be able to explain how their "this is what it costs us per day" figure is made up - at the minute it's made up as follows.

1) 10% Fact - out net contributions to the EU

2) 20% Guess - their assessment of cost for CAP and CFP

3) 70% Pure Conjecture - their assessment of the cost of European Legislation on UK businesses and how much of it would just disappear if we weren't in the EU.

They quote the Qpen Europe Group for item number 3. Strangely enough, they missed out this bit from Open Europe.

“The two-year process to leave the EU gives the remainder EU the upper hand in any negotiation on new trade terms, with the UK being unable to take part in the final vote and the European Parliament having a veto. Those who say ‘let’s just leave’ don’t quite realise that the EU institutions may actually have an equally strong, if not stronger, say, over Brexit talks than if Britain seeks renegotiation from within the EU. This is not to say that a relatively favourable deal couldn’t be struck, but it will take time and no doubt come with a high transaction cost.”

Nice Worthy, but how about someone tells us actually what use the EU has actually been? No one says because I suspect no one has a real clue.

I'm in bobo's camp I want trade unification without the political elite running the show for their own ends, lets face it the EU is now the Germans bastard child that one day they will struggle to control, ecconomic downturn in Germany and we'd better hope the armed forces are not too run down.

[Worthy4England]

I don't disagree with much of that Worthy.

What may have changed last week was that there are decent sized rumps in most countries now who have an anti-what's happening now stance in many countries. It's always been put that there is only UKIP and the swivel-eyed Tories in the UK. OK, maybe the racist FN in France.

There is more than that and, should the UK start to renegotiate then they will either win concessions w(which lots of other nations will start wanting) or we'll get no-where, a national mood of feeling insulted ill then develop and we will exit at the referendum. By which time other countries will have sizable chunks who will be looking to do the same.

I don't want a return to national free-for-alls, I just want it to be an Economic, not a political, block.

There was a large depression in the 1920's/30's - we saw the rise of the right, then too - it was clearly nothing to do with any European Union. The rise of nationalism will probably help no-one, contrary to the current UKIP thinking. I'm not bothered particularly around closer political ties with Europe one way or another - as an individual, I am bound to live by some other bugger's rules, whoever and wherever they are. The thought that I actually have some control over them is plain fanciful. Lobby groups and businesses have control over them, whether that be Brussels or Westminster is largely irrelevant to me.

Folks saying that we would be able to negotiate our own free trade agreements without interference from either the EU or the US probably needs to go look at how many "free trade" agreements with other countries the US has blocked historically, that didn't actually involve the US at all, there were certainly a fair number in the 60's where they had us right by the bollocks.

I suspect some of our larger markets - Financial Services, will not be helped by us withdrawing.

I think it will be interesting to see how many swivel eyed Tories there were, when we come round to General Election time. I suspect there'll have been quite a number.

[Worthy4England]

I'm happy for us to have a referendum - it's only right and proper.

It was interesting to hear that prominent Eurosceptic Hannan last night when he was interviewed and actively suggesting that our trade agreements would remain in place at no penalty to the UK. Bit of a leap of faith there Dan.

It will also give the opportunity for UKIP to answer some questions of their own

I'm not sure where anyone (certainly not me anyhow), said all our jobs depend on its existence. Nor that there'd be no wars in Europe - especially given that the two places Hobes quotes were not European Member states at the time they had wars. I certainly don't believe armeggeddon would occur by us not being in the EU. But no matter, facts are in short supply within the UKIP camp.

I will be delighted when they eventually get round to telling us

How much we will lose from lessening our bargaining power.

How many new Trade Agreements we will need in place, how long it will take us to put them in place, how much this will cost.

How much we will still pay to Europe to trade with it, with us sat on the outside (a la Norway, Switzerland etc.) and no influence at all over policy.

What they think the likely migration of businesses headquartered in the UK will be (if any)

They'll be able to explain how their "this is what it costs us per day" figure is made up - at the minute it's made up as follows.

1) 10% Fact - out net contributions to the EU

2) 20% Guess - their assessment of cost for CAP and CFP

3) 70% Pure Conjecture - their assessment of the cost of European Legislation on UK businesses and how much of it would just disappear if we weren't in the EU.

They quote the Qpen Europe Group for item number 3. Strangely enough, they missed out this bit from Open Europe.

“The two-year process to leave the EU gives the remainder EU the upper hand in any negotiation on new trade terms, with the UK being unable to take part in the final vote and the European Parliament having a veto. Those who say ‘let’s just leave’ don’t quite realise that the EU institutions may actually have an equally strong, if not stronger, say, over Brexit talks than if Britain seeks renegotiation from within the EU. This is not to say that a relatively favourable deal couldn’t be struck, but it will take time and no doubt come with a high transaction cost.”

Nice Worthy, but how about someone tells us actually what use the EU has actually been? No one says because I suspect no one has a real clue.

I'm in bobo's camp I want trade unification without the political elite running the show for their own ends, lets face it the EU is now the Germans bastard child that one day they will struggle to control, ecconomic downturn in Germany and we'd better hope the armed forces are not too run down.

See - every time I ask the questions around costs of exit, it's ducked - time and time again. Generally by you.

[Prufrock]

Seems a good place to post this again: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... er-bristol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Hobes, you've still not explain how I've 'lost'. 2 'in' votes for every 'out'. Unless you're suggesting people didn't mean what they voted for? How democratic.

[BWFC_Insane]

↑↑↑ Pru .... you are determined to pretend (????) to be dim about this arithmetic aren't you.

It's fair to presume that UKIP want a referendum .... 27.5%
The Tories have stated they will hold one if in power, albeit after trying to renegotiate the terms and many hoping they won't need to ... 24%.

That's over 51% committed to one.

Your presumption that every Labour supporter is pro Europe is staggeringly naive.

I do hope Maths wasn't a strong point in that education so expensively garnered.

I've said before ... by all means be non-democratic. Just realise that's what you are.

So any decision that isn't directly voted on makes it undemocratic?

I'm not so sure about that.

The problem is that the public are hardly in my view experts on the political, cultural and most crucially economic consequences of being in the EU or not.
Perhaps a referendum with a neutral group commissioned to produce the net benefits or otherwise of being members with full analysis and breakdown. Not a party political piece but the definitive and accepted analysis of being in the EU. It is a big ask to find such a group but I'd have thought there would be the requisite experts within academia in the variety of disciplines who could pull it together.

At least then it would be a vote based on facts rather than headlines.

F*CKIN HELL!!!

The Elite have spoken, sorry peasants but we know best.

Your attitude sums up all thats wrong with the EU in one sentence.

Pru, your just a bad loser. Young, wet behind the ears, things not going your way, lash out
Bring back the birch.

Why not have an independent study so that benefits and drawbacks are fully evaluated and understood by the public. Surely a vote on facts is better than a vote on headlines and inaccuracies?

[Prufrock]

When there has been 40 years of erosion of the national standing, increases of Europe from 12 members to 28, when we move to co-determination of laws, when national sovereignty is attacked from all sides. This isn't small fry, it's huge and is persistent. No-one has ever asked this country (or any others for that matter) if they want a United States of Europe yet that's what the Eurocrats now openly state they are moving toward.

Or, & how about this one .... when the Governing party says "if there are any more changes in European law which affect our sovereignty we will ask the people their view " ... and there is, and they don't (Brown/Blair).

Or .... & now, here's thing, when parties committed to it garner 51%+ of a vote.

Cheeky, messy, little thing that voting nonsense isn't it !!




I'm old enough to have voted last time we were asked. That was to stay in, or leave, the EEC. An economic, trade based entity. It won (the Labour Party was anti .... acolytes such as Tony Benn remained avidly so). The scope of the project is enormously greater now. It's about time we were asked again.

That might be a convincing case for having a referendum on having a referendum, but I still think it's a waste of time. The Tories are committed to having that EU referendum because they're pandering to the back benchers, they're still committed to fighting on the 'In' side.

The rest of your post I don't much disagree with. Unlike some, I do think membership of the EU is the sort of issue which does lend itself to a referendum but, I don't think unreasonably, I think we should be checking there's a chance of each side winning before we have a referendum. Otherwise it's a vanity project and a waste of time and money.

It's hardly 'undemocratic' to say so.

[Hoboh]

Seems a good place to post this again: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... er-bristol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Hobes, you've still not explain how I've 'lost'. 2 'in' votes for every 'out'. Unless you're suggesting people didn't mean what they voted for? How democratic.

Actually the 60% who are not represented wanted to vote planet hoboh, but I'm busy at the moment

There you are, that fancifull enough for your thinking

Anyway I'm off out on the bike for a bit now, no doubt there will be more comady to laugh at when I get back

[bobo the clown]

Seems a good place to post this again: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... er-bristol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Hobes, you've still not explain how I've 'lost'. 2 'in' votes for every 'out'. Unless you're suggesting people didn't mean what they voted for? How democratic.

Jess wept.

.... & now we know why. Your parents should sue Bolton School for their fees back.

We all know what you want to be the outcome. It's just that you didn't get it. Apparently because most people aren't as clever and metropolitan and urbane and educated as you and so theirvviews don't count.

51.5% plus almost 5% from fringe parties voted for parties committed to an exit or a referendum about one. How the feck do you fail to acknowledge that ??

Anyway, as someone who used to be communist "iin their youth" is sort of greenish, labours, socialists, not affiliated is now I guess you'll be died in the wool Tory in a few more years.

[Prufrock]

Classy. Personal attacks of course always being a sure sign of somebody putting forward a convincing case .

I do acknowledge that^. But a referendum is a means not an end. 23 of your 51% is a party committed to having a vote and winning that vote for 'In'.

How do you not acknowledge that 2 people for every 1 voted for a party wanting to stay in? That's the end.

[William the White]

When there has been 40 years of erosion of the national standing, increases of Europe from 12 members to 28, when we move to co-determination of laws, when national sovereignty is attacked from all sides. This isn't small fry, it's huge and is persistent. No-one has ever asked this country (or any others for that matter) if they want a United States of Europe yet that's what the Eurocrats now openly state they are moving toward.

Or, & how about this one .... when the Governing party says "if there are any more changes in European law which affect our sovereignty we will ask the people their view " ... and there is, and they don't (Brown/Blair).

Or .... & now, here's thing, when parties committed to it garner 51%+ of a vote.

Cheeky, messy, little thing that voting nonsense isn't it !!




I'm old enough to have voted last time we were asked. That was to stay in, or leave, the EEC. An economic, trade based entity. It won (the Labour Party was anti .... acolytes such as Tony Benn remained avidly so). The scope of the project is enormously greater now. It's about time we were asked again.

Just to correct the historical record - Labour was not anti - though it was split - the referendum was actually on the terms renegotiated by the Wilson government after Labour defeated Heath in 1974. Labour's official position was 'Yes' as was the Tories. In effect both parties had oppositionists who formed vociferous minorities. In the vote there was a large majority in favour nationwide = two thirds in favour.

It is true that Tony Benn was hostile and remained so but on this, as on so many things, he was in a minority within the PLP. But I'm mystified on what made him an 'acolyte'. Which priest do you think he was assisting?

I voted against in 1975 on the grounds that it enhanced the power of capital. I'm not sure which way I would vote now, but suspect not with UKIP or the highly dangerous nationalist and racist parties that will congregate in the new European Parliament.

[Worthy4England]

Seems a good place to post this again: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... er-bristol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Hobes, you've still not explain how I've 'lost'. 2 'in' votes for every 'out'. Unless you're suggesting people didn't mean what they voted for? How democratic.

Actually the 60% who are not represented wanted to vote planet hoboh, but I'm busy at the moment

There you are, that fancifull enough for your thinking

Anyway I'm off out on the bike for a bit now, no doubt there will be more comady to laugh at when I get back

That's exactly the response we normally get when we ask about the cost of exit...

[Gravedigger]

The Swiss seem to have a referendum for everything. They just refused the Swiss Air Force from buying the Saab Grippen so referwotsits seem to have their place. It just depends on what. The lurching of the French towards the National Front is surely an indication that even the French, the motor of Europe, are becoming rapidly disillusioned. We need something fresher than Tory and Old/New Labour and less fishy.

[Bruce Rioja]