Unofficial Hexus Brexit Straw Poll - In, Out, Undecided?

[peterb]

But that is making the, IMO, wrong assumption that what the system the UK already has in place can be likened to running your own household. It can't. For example, 63% of voters did not vote for the Party that has a majority in the House of Commons. We can't, by and large, vote on who sits in the House of Lords. We can't, or have not yet been afforded, the right to choose our Head of State. 4M UKIP voters ended up with 1 Member of Parliament, as opposed to the 1.5M SNP voters who got 56. The notion that 'we' would have control of our household is wrong. We wouldn't – the main political parties, within a system that is almost entirely geared towards sustaining them, would have control.

Arguing that we should leave the EU because of immigration, or economics etc, I understand. But arguing for leaving, or in fact remaining in, the EU for democratic, or soverign reasons is, IMO, akin to 2 bald blokes fighting over a comb, and the distinction that you claim above just doesn't seem that apparent to me. For me, the choice can be summed up by the following:

Stay in EU – Decisions will be made by those that the majority of voters didn't vote for
Leave the EU – Decisions will still be made by those that the majority of voters didn't vote for


Most households, unless occupied by one person, will at many times be simply a microcosm of a commune; it's the nature of living with people. If we wanted complete control of the household, and make all the decisions, we would only ever live on our own. But there is always a price to pay in living a more insular life – especially when, as we see now globally, our environments are becoming increasingly smaller.

True, but an MP elected to Parliament in this country, by voters of this country, is generally going to have the interests of all his constituents at heart, and the interests of the country, however he sees that according to his political persuasion, and his political persuasion will influence voters, unless he is an exceptional constituency MP.

But a Grek/German/French/Polish...... MEP is not going to be interested in The UK's interests, he/she will put there own country first, and the issues that affect them may not be in the UKs. A politician may say that they have Europes interests at heart, but with such a diverse se,etc ion of nation states, I find it hard to see where there could be common ground.

But to me, Europe is somewhere I enjoy visiting, but neither somewhere nor a concept I feel any particular empathy with or belonging to, other than the fact that it is something the UK is geologically linked to as part of the same tectonic plate, and separated by the English Channel.

[kompukare]

True, but an MP elected to Parliament in this country, by voters of this country, is generally going to have the interests of all his constituents at heart (snip).

Well, in a FPTP electoral system is that true? Surely the whole tribal nature of politics at Westminster in the UK (note that all the regional assemblies don't use FPTP), means that is quite safe for someone in a 'safe' seat to totally ignore those voters who would never vote for them.

Compare that to Ireland's STV with multi-seat constituencies: in a five seater constituency (always though voters in a 3 seater get a poorer deal), they don't just have to compete for floating voters. but also for their second/third/etc. preferences. So alienating those who they assume will never give them their first preference would not be wise. And Irish politics has a lot more consensus building because of this whether that is in civic partnership where unions and employees decide on wages etc., coalition governments and so.

Similarly, a country with a federal system like Germany is well used to coalition government, and having to reach a consensus.

Thing is, this probably the European norm, but the UK is a very centralised state with an antiquated voting system, so there is no need to build up a consensus as appealing to those who traditionally vote for 'the other party' does not work that well.

[Galant]

Well, in a FPTP electoral system is that true? Surely the whole tribal nature of politics at Westminster in the UK (note that all the regional assemblies don't use FPTP), means that is quite safe for someone in a 'safe' seat to totally ignore those voters who would never vote for them.

Compare that to Ireland's STV with multi-seat constituencies: in a five seater constituency (always though voters in a 3 seater get a poorer deal), they don't just have to compete for floating voters. but also for their second/third/etc. preferences. So alienating those who they assume will never give them their first preference would not be wise. And Irish politics has a lot more consensus building because of this whether that is in civic partnership where unions and employees decide on wages etc., coalition governments and so.

Similarly, a country with a federal system like Germany is well used to coalition government, and having to reach a consensus.

Thing is, this probably the European norm, but the UK is a very centralised state with an antiquated voting system, so there is no need to build up a consensus as appealing to those who traditionally vote for 'the other party' does not work that well.

You're missing the main point. Any problems in local politics or national politics would only be exaggerated in European politics. Maybe the MP in the UK can ignore, at times, the people around him, but they're still there. In Europe MEP's in different nations do not have the citizen of other nations around them, they might not ever see them. A UK MP would at least know he's ignoring locals, or trying to, and someone else will hopefully be nearby to remind him. In Europe an MEP might never even think of those nationals from elsewhere, and might not have anyone else around to the contrary.

[opel80uk]

But a Grek/German/French/Polish...... MEP is not going to be interested in The UK's interests, he/she will put there own country first, and the issues that affect them may not be in the UKs. A politician may say that they have Europes interests at heart, but with such a diverse se,etc ion of nation states, I find it hard to see where there could be common ground.

But I think that's the point that remainers are making, albeit subtly; by staying in, and having closer integration with the rest of Europe, it would hopefully mean that Greek/German/French/Polish politicians will be interested in the UK's interests, as a lot of those interests would be shared by them as well. You suggest that those MP's are not interested in us, but yet we've always been on the periphery of the EU in many aspects, often down to our own choices. We can't bemoan we're not cared about, whilst we've been doing the in-out dance for the past x number of years.

I think that what is very likely is that if the UK votes to remain, the EU will see that as a green light to forge ahead with much closer integration than before, and I fully expect that if that happens, for a common economic policy to be on the agenda in the not too distant future. If something like that is implemented, that in itself would mean that MP's from other countries would be forced to take an interest in the UK and, as the UK a major player economically, not just a passing one.

[The Hand]

Brexit The Movie (1hr 11mins):



The last 30 minutes are the most interesting, about the trade deals etc.

[TooNice]

Generally not keen of videos that only cover one perspective regardless of which side it is, because I always need to view it with handfuls of salt. But I actually watched it till the end.

I like Switzerland. It's the country I have spent the longest after the UK. They are definitely doing something right, for a start, I think that if we had a model of democracy more similar to their's, I'd be far less apathetic about British politics, and more likely to want to shield it against the faceless overlords in Brussels. But we don't. And while Switzerland is one of the most prosperous country in the world per capita, so is Luxembourg. Which is part of the EU. And government aside, we also have enough differences with Switzerland that I am not convinced that we could simply use their model and end up with the same success.

Of course, we can negotiate trade treaties with the rest of the world, that is one thing I've never doubted. But in the end, and at the risk of bringing back the whole issue of immigration again, freedom of movement within Europe is a big deal for me. Being able to call the UK, that is, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland "home" and be free to move between any of those locations without restriction is nice.. but being able to do so for the entire EU is (much) better. If we can leave the EU but still keep this freedom of movement in place, then I may not mind as much. Of course, a lot of people wanting to leave wishes to do so for the opposite reason, so it's largely a non-starter. But if you are going to take that away, I'd like something else in return. Freedom of movement across commonwealth countries would do nicely. But then, the commonwealth isn't just Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which are all lovely countries I'd love to spend a few years of my life in), so I really doubt that would work for people who wants to "take control of our borders"

[Andy3536]

Generally not keen of videos that only cover one perspective regardless of which side it is, because I always need to view it with handfuls of salt. But I actually watched it till the end.

I like Switzerland. It's the country I have spent the longest after the UK. They are definitely doing something right, for a start, I think that if we had a model of democracy more similar to their's, I'd be far less apathetic about British politics, and more likely to want to shield it against the faceless overlords in Brussels. But we don't. And while Switzerland is one of the most prosperous country in the world per capita, so is Luxembourg. Which is part of the EU. And government aside, we also have enough differences with Switzerland that I am not convinced that we could simply use their model and end up with the same success.

Of course, we can negotiate trade treaties with the rest of the world, that is one thing I've never doubted. But in the end, and at the risk of bringing back the whole issue of immigration again, freedom of movement within Europe is a big deal for me. Being able to call the UK, that is, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland "home" and be free to move between any of those locations without restriction is nice.. but being able to do so for the entire EU is (much) better. If we can leave the EU but still keep this freedom of movement in place, then I may not mind as much. Of course, a lot of people wanting to leave wishes to do so for the opposite reason, so it's largely a non-starter. But if you are going to take that away, I'd like something else in return. Freedom of movement across commonwealth countries would do nicely. But then, the commonwealth isn't just Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which are all lovely countries I'd love to spend a few years of my life in), so I really doubt that would work for people who wants to "take control of our borders"

To some extent, i think that freedom of movement was made with the best intentions. But it hasn't worked.
Pressure on school places, on the NHS, on housing, on wages.
When migration keeps going up and up and up, and you can't do anything about that where do you go? Ask the EU for help? There's simply nothing you can do to relieve the pressure. And at some point something's going to have to give.

It's not the be all and end all with the EU though, but it's the straw that broke the camels back.
If we vote to stay, we're gonna have an EU Army, Navy, border force, tighter economic policies, free movement of people, a deal with the US that means if companies profits are effected by national laws or rulings they can sue aswell as forcing US medical companies on the NHS, criminalising anglers (lets not forget that)

If this was just a vote to keep the EU, as it is now. That would be a tough decision. But it's not. A vote to stay in will be a green light to move us into closer and closer integration with the EU, and that means in the future the Ukraine and Turkey too. It's not a vote for the status quo.

[TooNice]

Well we probably had a hand in half the world speaking English and wanting to come over here, instead of, say, Germany (whom at one point did dangerously come close to ruling Europe)

The YouTube video made it sound like were quite keen to signed up for the EEC when we weren't doing too well. And now that the EU is going through a down, it's time to jump ship eh.

But I get it. For the majority of people who have no intention of moving out of the town they are in, let alone the country for a while, freedom of movements only has downs. For me the up still outweight the down by far. Like I said though, I would consider an alternative to the EU. But there is nothing on the table, and I doubt that there is going to be one either if/after we leave the EU. Personal benefit aside, I am also one of those who do not believe that the UK is "overcrowded" by a long shot, and without the migrants, our ageing population will catch up to us sooner or later. We're probably going to find out in our lifetime how that is going to affect Japan, but it's not looking all that great.

[The Hand]

Paul Mason makes the case for eventual Brexit for the leftwing here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...on-greece-tory

The first three paragraphs are a quite compelling for anyone who believes in nation state parliamentary democracy.. to be honest most of it is pretty damning with regards to the EU. Definitely worth a read imo.

Edit:
It's worth quoting the first paragraph:

The leftwing case for Brexit is strategic and clear. The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime. It has an executive so powerful it could crush the leftwing government of Greece; a legislature so weak that it cannot effectively determine laws or control its own civil service. A judiciary that, in the Laval and Viking judgments, subordinated workers’ right to strike to an employer’s right do business freely.

[excalibur2]

Well we probably had a hand in half the world speaking English and wanting to come over here, instead of, say, Germany (whom at one point did dangerously come close to ruling Europe)

The YouTube video made it sound like were quite keen to signed up for the EEC when we weren't doing too well. And now that the EU is going through a down, it's time to jump ship eh.

But I get it. For the majority of people who have no intention of moving out of the town they are in, let alone the country for a while, freedom of movements only has downs. For me the up still outweight the down by far. Like I said though, I would consider an alternative to the EU. But there is nothing on the table, and I doubt that there is going to be one either if/after we leave the EU. Personal benefit aside, I am also one of those who do not believe that the UK is "overcrowded" by a long shot, and without the migrants, our ageing population will catch up to us sooner or later. We're probably going to find out in our lifetime how that is going to affect Japan, but it's not looking all that great.

H'mm when the migrants get old will we have to let in more to support them.....a continous cycle. It seems to me looking at history that the only people that kept a part of Europe intergrated quite successfully were the Romans......with one group\country in charge it works whether it's good or bad e.g. Charlemagne, Napoleon and erm Hitler.

[Galant]

Paul Mason makes the case for eventual Brexit for the leftwing here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...on-greece-tory

The first three paragraphs are a quite compelling for anyone who believes in nation state parliamentary democracy.. to be honest most of it is pretty damning with regards to the EU. Definitely worth a read imo.

Edit:
It's worth quoting the first paragraph:

Bit odd that. Makes the case for leaving on the grandest of ideas, and then says he'll vote remain or abstain due to the Tories being in power, before ending with the idea that he'll likely want out soon. Fine. But he fails to address the reality that if the decision is made to remain, unless there's a massive collapse, it's unlikely anyone will have the chance to leave soon. Surely there's more chance of the left wing politicians and voters working to sway the public and policy after an out vote and during the rebuild rather than hope for a second referendum?

[The Hand]

Bit odd that. Makes the case for leaving on the grandest of ideas, and then says he'll vote remain or abstain due to the Tories being in power, before ending with the idea that he'll likely want out soon. Fine. But he fails to address the reality that if the decision is made to remain, unless there's a massive collapse, it's unlikely anyone will have the chance to leave soon. Surely there's more chance of the left wing politicians and voters working to sway the public and policy after an out vote and during the rebuild rather than hope for a second referendum?

Yes, he's also working on the rather naive assumption there will be a second referendum in future anyway.. It's possible there will never be a second referendum if the Remain side wins. Mason should just vote to leave in June if he doesn't like the EU.

[Galant]

Yes, he's also working on the rather naive assumption there will be a second referendum in future anyway.. It's possible there will never be a second referendum if the Remain side wins. Mason should just vote to leave in June if he doesn't like the EU.

Exactly. He specifically points out that in the UK you can vote to boot out a government you don't like, but in the EU not. And yet because he's afraid of Tories he opts to avoid the potential hard work of doing that, and end up with a immovable EU government and, I suppose, hope for the best?

[SeriousSam]

Personal benefit aside, I am also one of those who do not believe that the UK is "overcrowded" by a long shot, and without the migrants, our ageing population will catch up to us sooner or later.

This mode of thinking, and this is not a dig at you TN as I understand where it comes from, is why we as a species have a bad habit of dropping ourselves in the crapper. It is a "holding pattern" solution which just creates bigger problems in the long run. People go along with it mainly because;

(a) They don't understand the implications
(b) Are hoping that they'll be long dead before the the proverbial hits the fan
(c) Think we'll "science" our way out of it

The reality is that our current population and demographic is putting a crippling demand on our ageing infrastructure. That's even without considering food and energy security, which are pretty iffy at current landmass. Take into account the potential impact of climate change, i.e. we'll be living on the "British Islands", and it is clear that more people is the LAST thing we need.

[TooNice]

Your opinion is as good as anyone's and I do not expect that we are going to come down to an agreement.

Climate change doesn't happen in isolation. Closing our borders isn't going to make the people who would've migrated here magically disappear I'd argue that if we can be more efficient, and we are sufficiently developed to be able to focus on improving efficiency, the migrants who are come here would use up less resource than if they were to move to somewhere where resources are used less efficiently.

And if we, as a developed country with the 5th largest economy in the world really can't meet the demand of the current population (I do not buy it), then there is something wrong with how we are managing our resources.

Like I said though, Japan will be an interesting case study and given that they do not seem to be opening their borders or making more babies, we will get to see first hand the impact of a falling population on a country.

[scaryjim]

... it is clear that more people is the LAST thing we need.

Ah, but if we stay IN the EU, the people who don't like the immigrants can just to move to nicer bits of Europe where the weather is better and the wine is cheaper - problem solved

Energy security is an odd one, since part of our exisiting energy security is provided via interconnects to the EU's power and gas distribution. An EU exit might slow immigration, but we'd then need to renegotiate those interconnects - and unless we can persuade the EU to sell us their energy cheaply (or UK energy increases in price), we risk losing that supply.

Personally I don't think that the immigration levels we're currently seeing from the EU are going to significantly impact either energy of food security in real terms - AFAIK we're already net importers of both commodities so we'll either keep the same level of immigration but also retain the known free trade and trade agreements that will allow us to plan food and energy security anyway, or we'll reduce the immigration but also have to renegotiate all our trade treaties to rebalance the food and energy supply. Either way, the overall impact will be minimal. Talking about immigration and energy/food security as related issues for voting decisions strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Both staying and leaving represent risks to our energy/food security, and both staying and leaving will impact our ability to control immigration, but to say that leaving will reduce immigration and therefore improve our energy or food security is pure speculation.