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

[SeriousSam]

That's a bit low for you Galant - attacking other people in Europe via out of context selected quotes is kind of a schoolyard approach I'd expect from a tabloid, not in a reasoned discussion of facts. The facts should be clear enough not to need this sort of thing surely? Those individuals do not solely represent the EU.

They don't represent Europe, yet all have and have had a very big say in the EU and what it will become. How much you can glean from what they say is debatable, and I agree taking them out of context is disingenuous. However, the irony is not lost on me that they talk about fear being the enemy of a united Europe when in fact it is their own fear which is driving them headlong in that direction without pause for thought.

[Galant]

That's a bit low for you Galant - attacking other people in Europe via out of context selected quotes is kind of a schoolyard approach I'd expect from a tabloid, not in a reasoned discussion of facts. The facts should be clear enough not to need this sort of thing surely? Those individuals do not solely represent the EU.

Hmmm, I'll generally accept the criticism of throwing in a few select quotes. However, in this case, in the full historical context, I don't see that those quotes aren't representative of the general tenor of and vision for the EU, and so were posted as a sort of summary. Sure, I could link to tons of articles and post large passages but I suspect it would end up more TLDR than useful. So basically I stand by the general direction of what I've posted, and if someone wants to question what it means, what I think, or to prove me wrong on any points then I'd welcome that. More than anything I'm seeking discussion/analysis to be able to gain greater understanding in making this decision.

There's lots of debate and there are lots of articles about the possible economics consequences (immediate, medium and long-term) of a Brexit (with a lot of complexity and few solid conclusions). However, I think it's worthwhile trying to gain a greater perspective on the trends and aims of the EU, and I don't think it's unfair to consider the words and writings of the leaders who are creating the EU as they go. Perhaps the biggest question I'm interested in, that seems to be often neglected, is not what does leaving the EU mean, but what can we know that remaining in the EU will mean. (Worst sentence construction ever.)

[kalniel]

By all means, but we can't possible give any meaningful consideration when it's just a selected out of context sentence or two. It would be just as possible for find sentences from pro-leave leaders or UK leaders which are obnoxious or are otherwise not sounding good for the future direction of the country, but it wouldn't add anything meaningful to the discussion because they're too selective and too out of context.

[Galant]

Here you go:

Merkel cited in The Guardian on the fix for the economic/Euro issues being greater political union and greater centralised government, greater union "in all policy areas".

And here's Hollande on the same, cited in France24, about the need for central government on the Euro and greater control to solve the problems of the Euro.

A speech from the vice-president of the European Commission entitled, "Why we need a United States of Europe now" and discussing the historical ideal and vision and the present need.

A Telegraph article from 2014 looking at the reality all EU members will, eventually, be required to adopt the Euro - an economic and political necessity.

A Guardian Article, a piece from Carnegie Europe and another piece from The National Interest (an American, "realist", perspective on foreign policy issues) all considering and believing there are only two paths for the EU and Euro, either progressively greater union on all counts and in all areas, or total failure.

And lastly, a piece from The Interpreter (published by a non-partisan think-tank out of Sydney), looking at German leadership of Europe towards a United States of Europe, and possible models for success.

[Galant]

Merkel Agrees To Comedian's Prosecution


BBC:

"The German government has approved a criminal inquiry into a comic who mocked the Turkish president, Chancellor Angel Merkel announced.
By law, the government must approve any use of an article of the criminal code on insulting foreign leaders.
Mrs Merkel stressed that the courts would have the final word.
And she added that her government would move to repeal the article. Turkey sought the prosecution after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was mocked.
Prosecutors will have to decide whether to proceed against comedian Jan Boehmermann, who crudely mocked Mr Erdogan in a poem. If convicted he could face a fine or a prison sentence."

"Before announcing that Boehmermann could be prosecuted she stressed that her government expected Turkey to comply with EU democratic norms in the areas of free speech and judicial independence.
"In a state under the rule of law, it is not a matter for the government but rather for state prosecutors and courts to weigh personal rights issues and other concerns affecting press and artistic freedom," she said.
"The presumption of innocence applies," she stressed, explaining that she was not making any prejudgement about Boehmermann.
Mr Erdogan has drawn much criticism in Turkey and internationally for attacking opponents, including harassment of journalists. Many accuse him of authoritarian methods, stifling legitimate dissent and promoting an Islamist agenda.
Some Germans worry that Mrs Merkel is compromising on freedom of expression in order to ensure Turkey's continued co-operation to stem the influx of migrants into the EU.
Thomas Oppermann, head of the Social Democrat (SPD) group in the German parliament, tweeted: "Prosecution of satire due to 'lese majesty' does not fit with modern democracy.""

[SeriousSam]

As far as I can tell we were seeing signs of that at least thirty years ago, and I see no reason to assume that it won't continue - at some point I'm pretty sure there will be a serious legal challenge/battle over nation state sovereignty and the applicability of all sorts of levels of EU law.

OTOH I personally have no real problem with a UK government being regulated and moderated by an outside force that ensures equality of treatment for people across a broad area. I have seen no indication that EU regulations and directives have a direct negative impact on my life, and I don't even see a trajectory that suggests they will, whereas I've seen a lot of stuff from the UK government (and not just the current one, but the last 2 as well) that absolutely has a direct negative impact on my life. So that particular argument actually supports "remain" from my point of view - and potentially even "remain with closer integration".

I'm curious... are you aware that you have made your decision and nothing will dissuade you, irrespective of its implications? This isn't a criticism as to be honest it doesn't bother me at all, seeing as it is your right to have your opinion, but more importantly (from my perspective) will actually debate it like an adult. Moreover once you get your head round the concept of "Tat tvam asi - Thou art that; Everything you think you are and everything you think you perceive are one and the same", it has a profound effect on your perception of other peoples perceived reality.

Oh and yes, I know I have made my decision and nothing will dissuade me. However, I know there are no arguments to "trump" (such a great word sullied by a monstrous individual) the principles on which it is based. It doesn't make me right, just correct when viewed against those criteria.

Anyway, all that may seem like a weird tangent but it does have a sort of point. If I read between the lines of your post I would surmise that you view the EU Convention on Human Rights act as a positive step forward. Personally I view it as a proper case of "Thomas Huxley" (nice idea slain by an ugly reality). The problem with it being that it its view of where the balance between individual and collective is fundamentally too far towards the individual. Furthermore it woefully ignores the fact that rights should come with responsibilities, and as a consequence disabusing those rights is far too easy. Thus we have a situation where (a) people take the mickey and (b) self righteous lawyers use it as a weapon to pursue their own twisted agenda. Combine this with a civil law system and you have recipe for disaster, because it lacks flexibility. It may not have had a direct impact on me, but it has on the society I live in, which is just as important.

So whereas you see European oversight as a good thing to mitigate the issues you have with our system, I see something else entirely. Essentially putting a set of muppets (that I cannot change) in charge of another set of muppets (which I can sort of change)... and nothing good comes of that situation.

*** If you've ever read Misspent Youth by Peter F Hamilton that is the political / social scenario we risk.

[SeriousSam]

Merkel Agrees To Comedian's Prosecution (SNIP)

I would make a comment about "that's what you get for having stupid laws (paragraph 103), but technically "The Treason Felony Act 1848" – which makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means – remains technically in force. Though it hasn't been deployed in a prosecution since late in 19th Century.

[The Hand]

The EuroSausage:

If this is not a reason to Vote Leave then I don't know what is.

[scaryjim]

I'm curious... are you aware that you have made your decision and nothing will dissuade you, irrespective of its implications? ...

That's not quite true, you know; if there was a strongly-evidenced factual reason that leaving was good or staying was bad, I'd be open to reconsidering my position.

But yes, I am aware that I have a fairly strongly-held opinion, and that most of the pros and cons of staying and leaving are subjective rather than objective; idealogical rather than factual. That being the case, it makes it very unlikely that anyone with any strongly-held opinion on the in-out issue is going to persuaded to change their decision.

As to the EU Convention on Human Rights; I don't know enough specific detail to comment on it's implementation. Certainly I approve of the concept; but if its implementation is flawed then my opinion is that you should seek to correct the perceived flaws, rather than to turn your back and make it Someone Else's Problem. A strong UK government working through the European legal structures should be able to do that; particularly if those perceived flaws are self-evident. And when I say that I may just be being hopelessly naive and optimistic, but I get the feeling that we've never really had a government that wanted to properly engage with the European process. Of course, even if we vote In now we're guaranteed to have a government for the next 4 years who isn't really that interested in engaging (not least because some parts of it will try to stab others in the back if we do). So while I can't see myself voting out, I don't think voting in will get me what I want. Wretched, isn't it...

Oh, and as an aside, I think the world generally has leant too far towards the rights of the individual, so if that is a feature of the wording of the EUCHR then it would be a concern. But again, I'd personally rather seek to fix that than run away from it...

[Galant]

An interesting historical perspective. I've yet to check out the rest of the blog which purports to look at the referendum debate.

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/20...-lies.html?m=1

[The Hand]

Boris is making the case for the UK to leave EU all over the news at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089

[Flibb]

It would be interesting if the other EU country's were given the choice now. Labour, SNP, and Libdems would not have given us the opportunity to choose.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Andy3536]

It would be interesting if the other EU country's were given the choice now. Labour, SNP, and Libdems would not have given us the opportunity to choose.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

There have been plenty of referendums across the EU that have been ignored. So whether they vote to stay in or leave, i'm not entirly sure it would make a difference.

Greece had a referendum on the bailout conditions, the people rejected the terms. But the EU went on to impose tougher conditions anyway.
Ireland voted against the treaty of Lisbon, so they just had another after a year of pro EU propaganda.
Ireland also rejected the treaty of Nice years earlier, just to have another vote on the same subject the following year...
France and the Netherlands rejected the EU constitution, the punctuation was changed and the title changed to the treaty of Lisbon and they both signed up without a further referendum.
Denmark rejected Maastrict aswell, but much like Ireland. Just had another vote the following year on it with some concessions that DC would be proud of ....
That's not including of course the 'promised' referendums that then didn't happen...

[scaryjim]

Where is the 'shake it all about' option?

Now now, have you seen what happens when you give people humorous options in online polls...?

[kalniel]

Now now, have you seen what happens when you give people humorous options in online polls...?

More of the same I say!

[The Hand]

Project Fear has shifted up a couple of gears with Osborne saying the "UK will be £4300 by household poorer by 2030" headline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36070761

A good piece here by Professor Patrick Minford on the scaremongering around jobs and the UK economy
in the event of Brexit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...ple-fallacies/