Which election is more important to you?

[scaryjim]

Yep, Standing for Council myself.

Good luck! I won't ask you to out your political affiliations on hexus

I stood for county council back in 1997 (came third, but polled well above the local and regional averages for my party). Was fun running the campaign, but I think I'd've got bored of the actually council business very quickly if I'd been voted in!

[big_hairy_rob]

I actually see the two are related. The future of the US presidency could affect our potential trade agreements with them, as could our exit from the EU. While not necessarily exclusively linked, the uncertain future of that agreement could sway many to voting to remain in. That said the Brexit is far more complex than just trade. I'm all for a joined Europe (or even world), but the exiting model hardly seems fair, impartial or even democratic.

[Saracen]

.... My biggest worry about Brexit is that it'll end up being on vote on whether the UK should be in the EU, rather than whether the UK should leave the EU. And those are two very different propositions...

That's an interesting point, and though I've seen it mentioned a couple of times on TV discussions, it's usually tangentially.

But, pragmatically, I don't see much difference.

Certainly, the result of a referendum on whether we should join if we weren't it would likely be vety different, and a number of people that won't vore to leave wouldn't vote to join. But, fact is, we are in, and we can only vote on what to do from where we are, not where we wish we were.

So, the question comes down to whether people think our long-term best interests are served by being in, with all that implies, both good and bad, or being out, with all that implies, too. That should determine the way we vote.

Personally, I'm waiting to see both sides make their case, if they ever do, once official campaign groups have been chosen. Then, I'll decide for sure, but right now it's a clear "out" unless someone comes up with a very convincing case to remain.

[jag272]

I'm all for a joined Europe (or even world), but the exiting model hardly seems fair, impartial or even democratic.

This is pretty much my stance on the whole Brexit thing. In an ideal world, I think it would be great if indeed the whole world was joined in that way, people could come and go as they please without there being any repercussions on the countries themselves. Unfortunately it's such an idealistic view that no matter how much we strive towards it, we'll never achieve that level of unity I don't think. So that said, I'm sorta Pro-EU but not in it's current state.

As for the US presidency, I pay a little attention to it to see whats going on, and I have a few very good American friends, so I like to have somewhat of an idea what is going on with it all. That said, this election seems to be such a joke I find it hard to care, and yet at the same time the way it is going is deeply concerning, though to a greater or lesser extent I think whichever way this particular election goes will be concerning.

As for which I care about more, honestly hard to say. While I don't really read into the whole brexit thing much, I guess I would have to say that since I'm directly involved with it, whereas I read more about the election (not to say I read a lot about it) out of concern for my friends more so than anything, but it doesn't directly impact me, unless whoever becomes president tries to burn all bridges or something.

[SeriousSam]

As to "Brexit" (I hate that term), I'm sure it'll come as no real surprise to anyone to know them I'm strongly in the "stay in" camp. And a big part of that is because I've yet to hear a single cogent argument that supports leaving the EU. My biggest worry about Brexit is that it'll end up being on vote on whether the UK should be in the EU, rather than whether the UK should leave the EU. And those are two very different propositions...

I've yet to hear a cogent argument for "staying in". Though to be honest I don't believe we will get one, for either position, from the mainstream media etc. There is no intelligent discussion any more as we've descended to level of a Monty Python sketch... "That's just the automatic gainsaying of everything I say". Admittedly the vast majority of the population lack the capacity to look at the question in anything other than "black or white", so it will just come down to emotionally driven opinion anyway.

This might sound somewhat contrary, but I will be voting out despite believing that Europe will be better off as a large Federal state. The problem for me with the current situation being essentially twofold;

1. We are so far from being "ready" to be in a federalised system it's comical. Nationalism is steel deeply routed within every country and still linked to extreme views on both sides of the political spectrum. Furthermore decisions are still made from the perspective of "individual" countries rather than "collective" nations, with self interest at the fore.

2. Our essential choice is "our way or highway" when it comes to the nature of the EU, with a one size fits all approach which will never work. Homogeneity is also a bad move in terms of "survival". To quote "The Major".
-If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialise, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.

Consequently it is my "reasoned opinion" that getting out now is the best course of action for both the UK and Europe. Predicated on the hope that (a) we do become more adaptable in the UK and (b) it leads to a breakdown in the current EU system.

Still in the context of the original question I'm with Saracen... the EU vote may be more personal as I have a say, but the US election has more scope to drop everyone in the crapper.

[Andy3536]

The EU is only going in one direction, it's eventually, no matter how long it takes. Going to be a federal system.
I don't believe we'll get another vote on this again so as far as I'm concerned this is the only opportunity to maintain any kind of democracy. The EU system is so messed up, with no prospect of change and with those in charge completely intent on moving the 'EU project' along.
It's far more important than the US election as far as I'm concerned. And tbh, i barely here anyone talking about, or referring to the US election. On the other hand, the Brexit conversation does appear to be frequently talked about (outside of the media at least)
I think the coverage from the BBC though is largely reacting to what's happening. The US is currently deciding on who to send from each party to be a candidate. With lots of spin, polls, rallys etc. Where as the Brexit discussion at least as far as important national discussion goes just isn't happening.
You get a few little sound bites. "X will cost jobs, Y will cost us more, Z is bad.... really bad.... "
The discusion so far on Brexit has been pathetic. I'm guessing the budget for the 2 campaigns is actually about £12.50. And that the national conversation is relying on a few MPs from each side getting a TV interview and trying to crow bar a little phase in at the end by saying " that's gonna be bad.....mkay..... "

[Phage]

I had a long rant here. You need to do some of your own research about this.
https://xkcd.com/386/

[SeriousSam]

I had a long rant here. You need to do some of your own research about this.
https://xkcd.com/386/

Ok I am both and as I have "The Thing Explainer"... but see no rant.

[The Hand]

The EU referendum vote is more important to me as it's likely to be a once in a life time opportunity.

I decided to vote to leave as it's fundamentally about democratic accountability for me rather than trade/immigration details. The EU does eventually want to become a full federal state with it's own military and inevitably it's own single foreign policy in time.

The EU is also being blackmailed by the anti-democratic Islamist Erdogan in Turkey. The Americans are expressing serious concerns about Erdogan and Turkey behind the scenes too.

Some info here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...erdogan-critic

[scaryjim]

Ok I am both and as I have "The Thing Explainer"... but see no rant.

I believe the point is that Phage went to bed *despite* someone being wrong on the internet...

I've yet to hear a cogent argument for "staying in". ...

... I decided to vote to leave as it's fundamentally about democratic accountability for me rather than trade/immigration details. ...

How much democratic accountability does the Westminster government actually provide? It's interesting that people have been warning about the inevitable EU slide towards federalism for the last forty years, yet I've not seen a single shred of genuine evidence offered up for which parts of our democracy have been torn away by this rabid federalist EU....

My fear for this referendum is that it will be won by the emotive "retain our sovereignty" vote without consideration for the economic burden we will place our country under if we leave. The only thing we actually know for certain in all of this is the amount of our economy we can trace to EU support. And it's really quite a lot. And that's what we're gambling on here - that we can leave the EU and find a way to manage the economic shift that WILL happen. But given we have no way of actually estimating the nature and size of that shift, we have no way to plan for that.

Essentially the no campaign is asking people to take a huge leap of faith that they'll be able to make things work. The no campaign fronted by people like IDS, Boris, Galloway and Farrage, I'm meant to put my faith in them? Interesting concept...

[Saracen]

"Huge leap of faith that they can make things work"?

Oh please. We've had 40 years of EU and the entire rest of our history without it, where we made things work. And countries like Canada, Australia and numerous others, all manage to stagger from one day to the next, with needing overlords in Brussels.

Will there be challenges, especially during transition? Of course. But the notion that we can't survive, can't "make things work" unless Uncle EU shows poor, stupid little UK how is just daft.

[peterb]

One of the more significant slides towards Federalism is the harmonisation of tax, particularly VAT. The UK government cannot reduce rates of VAT to below 5%. it's one of the reasons why energy charges attract VAT.

This is more than Federalism, this is the attempt to create a superstate. The US - probably the largest federal system - does not have a unified tax system. There is a Federal government tax, but each State can set its own rate of purchase and income tax (And I think Corporation Tax) to make the State economically attractive.

Currently the UK has some scope in making the UK economically attractive by varying Corporation tax and making London a more attractive financial centre (as does Gibraltar, The Caymen Islands, Panama, BVI etc). But under the superstate, that competitive advantage could be lost.

I have no problem with the concept of a common market area, what I do have a problem with is this closer political union, one of the manifestations is where the European Court can over-rule our own domestic legal system.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the UK, being a fair minded nation, has slavishly implemented European Directives as tablets of stone, rather than applying them with due regard to UK circumstances.

But the very notion that one size fits all nations as diverse as The UK to Greece, or Portugal to Estonia is at best, wishful fantasy, and at worst, ludicrous.

[scaryjim]

... Oh please. We've had 40 years of EU and the entire rest of our history without it, where we made things work. And countries like Canada, Australia and numerous others, all manage to stagger from one day to the next, with needing overlords in Brussels.

Will there be challenges, especially during transition? Of course. But the notion that we can't survive, can't "make things work" unless Uncle EU shows poor, stupid little UK how is just daft.

Good thing the global landscape hasn't changed at all in the last 40 years then, isn't it. We can just go back to doing things the way we did in 1975 and everything will work out fine.

No other country has done what the out campaign are proposing. The leap of faith isn't about whether the UK can eventually get back on its feet and find its own place in the world. It's not about whether the UK, having never joined the EU, would be better off than it is now.

It's about whether the challenges and risks of this transition are worth the benefits we will see having gone through it. Will the UK be in a sufficiently better position after the transition to have made the transition worthwhile? Thing is, no-one can tell us how bad the transition will be or what position the UK will be in after that transition period. There isn't even any data to model the possibilities. There is no rational argument for leaving, because the uncertainties make it impossible to predict the consequences of leaving. it is literally a leap of faith.

[The Hand]

It's a bit naive to suggest in 2016 that the EU goals/actions are not that of an emerging federal/super-state.

I remember a couple of years ago, when there was the Clegg-Farage debate on the EU and Clegg was swearing blind there would be no EU Army and it was a "dangerous fantasy" to suggest the notion. Less than a year later the European Comission President Jean-Claude Juncker calls for a EU Army:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ission-miltary

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck etc. It's about what the EU is becoming, not just what it is now.

[scaryjim]

... I remember a couple of years ago, when there was the Clegg-Farage debate on the EU and Clegg was swearing blind there would be no EU Army and it was a "dangerous fantasy" to suggest the notion. Less than a year later the European Comission President Jean-Claude Juncker calls for a EU Army:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ission-miltary ....

One - albeit high ranking - EU official saying an EU army would be a good idea is not the same as the EU creating an army, or even the EU as a whole wanting an army. People seem to act like the EU is three old men in a sealed room in Brussels passing down edicts without any oversight or process. It's almost as if the European Parliament didn't exist, and we didn't send representatives to it. Of course, last time we had EU elections we voted in a bunch of people who ran on the a ticket of "I have no intention of doing my job", so perhaps we deserve whatever we get...

As I say, if someone can actually show me a reasonable set of estimates for what the transition will look like and what the UK's global economic position will be afterwards, I'll consider voting to leave. If the worst that happens from staying in is that an EU politician decides how my life gets messed around rather than a UK politician, then frankly I don't care. I'm unlikely to agree with what any of them want to do anyway, and at least by staying in I know roughly what the economic future will look like. The only thing out currently has to offer me is uncertainty and doubt, with no realistic likelihood of my life being better afterwards. That's really a no brainer.

[The Hand]

Perhaps the two most impartial articles on the Leave/Remain economic outlook:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...onomics-report

Neil Woodford made his millions inside the EU, so I would have thought he would be in favour of staying without a doubt. According to Woodford, it's a zero-sum game.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blo...nomy-eu-europe

Another good piece above as well.

On the EU army, I wouldn't be surprised after the referendum with a successful remain vote in the UK, talk of a EU Army suddenly starts up again. An interesting piece here on "Merkel expecting Cameron to back EU Army" though hard to verify as accurate but entirely plausible:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...gotiation.html