UK EU Referendum [In or Out?]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's because America is fairly right shifted anyway I would imagine. Has been since Regan (Who despite being the bannerman for Republicans would likely run as a Democrat today) To the extent that in order for the Republicans to have a distinct identity they had to appeal to the extreme right loonies (And allowed the Tea party to take over I think), and that basically undermined the party and lead to Trump being the viable option. 

 

I've said it before, but Sanders is only really liberal by US standards - But those same standards would label most conservative parties in Europe say as being liberal. 

Guessing UKIP is the exception to the rule then?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Guessing UKIP is the exception to the rule then?

 

UKIP is not our conservative party. It might be comprised mostly of former Tories, but it's not the Conservative party. It's one of the many far right parties that have risen up in Europe in the past 5 years. It wasn't even the first one in our country the BNP predated it. But the BNP had way too many negative associations to ever be viable. 

 

Plus you know they follow the pattern of if you yell a lie loud and often enough people will start thinking it's true. The Leave Campaign is just essentially an extension of the rise of UKIP - They even have similar political approaches, namely spout bullshit at people and hope they don't bother to look up why it's a lie. Generally taking people's disenchantment and directing it wrongly at immigration

 

Trump is essentially the US equivalent to this. 

[~~~~]

~90% of economists think that the UK is better off in the EU. I don't have any in depth understand of economics, so I'm better off trusting people who do.

 

Let's also not let this debate fly off into the US presidential election please - we already have a thread for that.

 

Also: voting tomorrow! I'm very excited! It will be the first vote I do that I care about. I have done one vote before but it was for the Police and Crime Commissioner and I didn't like any of the candidates.

[~British Soul~]

My first foray into voting was also for the Police and Crime commissioner, and I wasn't really bothered who got it in my area tbph.

 

As for tomorrow's vote, should be interesting.

[EHN.]

My first was also for the PCC although I had little interest in it compared to this. I'm intrigued to see what the result is tomorrow but I'll also be relieved once its over, stay or leave. Being part of the downfall of a strong 4 year friendship over difference in political views has not been the greatest time. 

[vla1ne]

well, i've got no real dog in the fight, but i will say, it's more of a decision to remain independent, vs, lose sovereignty. if you stay, you will be melted into the country, for better or worse, and if you leave, you will have to stand on your own, keeping your freedom, but having to make your own stand again, for better or worse.

 

[spoiler=interesting video on the topic by sargon]

 

 

 

he seems to have the right of things from what i know of the situation. you can object to his stance on leaving, but he's backing his reasoning pretty well. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Actually Cameron got a deal that excludes us from the idea of the 'ever closer union' of the EU. On condition of us voting in, it will be drafted into EU legislation that any and all talks and attempts to create an 'ever closer union' do not apply to the UK.

 

So our sovereignty isn't entirely compromised upon us staying in the EU as some want to argue. 

[Agro]

i wasn't paying attention to this but i watch john oliver so

 

[~~~~]

well, i've got no real dog in the fight, but i will say, it's more of a decision to remain independent, vs, lose sovereignty. if you stay, you will be melted into the country, for better or worse, and if you leave, you will have to stand on your own, keeping your freedom, but having to make your own stand again, for better or worse.

 

[spoiler=interesting video on the topic by sargon]

 

 

 

he seems to have the right of things from what i know of the situation. you can object to his stance on leaving, but he's backing his reasoning pretty well. 

Sovereignty is a ridiculous thing to want anyway. If you think sovereignty is a good thing, then logically you should also be for breaking up the UK into its constituent countries, and for breaking up those into their constituent counties and those into classical-style city states. How is it possible to non-arbitrarily determine that the amount of sovereignty we have at the moment is the 'correct' amount of sovereignty? I'll bet you can't.

 

Historically, groups of people have banded together because teamwork and cooperation makes us stronger. Would any of the states of the United States of America have got as far as it did if they weren't united?

 

Sovereignty brings no inherent utility. We'd simply be handing control from one group of elites (the EU) to another (the Tories).

 

EDIT:

 

 

i wasn't paying attention to this but i watch john oliver so

 

Wasn't really listening, but:

 

"But, a Brexit or British exit could have wide ranging implications .. for the UK." at 1:30

 

Just made me chuckle.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sovereignty is a ridiculous thing to want anyway. If you think sovereignty is a good thing, then logically you should also be for breaking up the UK into its constituent countries, and for breaking up those into their constituent counties and those into classical-style city states. How is it possible to non-arbitrarily determine that the amount of sovereignty we have at the moment is the 'correct' amount of sovereignty? I'll bet you can't.

 

Historically, groups of people have banded together because teamwork and cooperation makes us stronger. Would any of the states of the United States of America have got as far as it did if they weren't united?

 

Sovereignty brings no inherent utility. We'd simply be handing control from one group of elites (the EU) to another (the Tories).

Sovereignty here means making the best decisions for the people living in your country. Which might not line up with the agenda of the EU.

 

Not exactly, those break-ups might not be needed if the laws of the UK aren't detrimental to the people living in those parts. If it's not broken, don't fix it

 

As for the US, it's true. My country was great once. We had allies, but our laws were for the most part made to suit the American people. The rise and persistence of outdated programs like NATO and NAFTA (god forbid the TTP) have slowed America down. America got to where it was by focusing on our internal working and engaging in wars when we needed to (something which the last two presidents have had no tact for)

 

America letting go of it's sovereignty is the reason why we're not great anymore

 

@Zauls

 

A point about children. If Capital isn't used (having a "negative" labor force in that there's not enough workers) depreciation is largely increased since the change in product would stagnate relative to the change in capital. It's necessary to have children because people are dying constantly and you'd need to replace them. Children > Immigrants most of the time because a child raised and sent through the UK school system is likely more skilled than an immigrant willing to accept lower wages. If the reverse holds true, then of course, the skilled immigrant should be allowed in.

 

That's a UK first policy. One where immigration is tightly controlled and work visa's are regulated

 

If this wasn't clear enough, look to America. Doctors from countries like India tend to be far less competent than those put through the American Medical Program. If you keep letting those second rate doctors in, and pay them the same wage, what motivation is there for attempting to strive? It'll just cause stagnation all over

 

That all being said, none of your are going to change your vote, nor is a few hundred votes likely to change the outcome. I shall be very interested to see the results tomorrow (for me?)

 

~90% of economists think that the UK is better off in the EU. I don't have any in depth understand of economics, so I'm better off trusting people who do

If there's one reason I hate my generation, it's this logic. They might know more than you, but what proof do you have that they're trustworthy.

 

No you're  bloody not. You're better off educating yourself a little bit and understanding how they bullshit you at times.

 

Like why do you think so many idiots support Sanders and Trump here, cause they really know nothing and just listen to "experts"

 

You just willingly became their sock puppet mouth piece. 

 

This isn't directed at the left or the right, both lie to people hoping they're sheep. And our generation loves to eat their sheet right up

[~~~~]

Sovereignty here means making the best decisions for the people living in your country. Which might not line up with the agenda of the EU.

 

Not exactly, those break-ups might not be needed if the laws of the UK aren't detrimental to the people living in those parts. If it's not broken, don't fix it

If you knew anything about the UK government, you would know that they have not and will not make the best decisions for anyone other than themselves or their filthy rich friends. I don't trust the EU people but I trust our own government even less.

 

 

If there's one reason I hate my generation, it's this logic. They might know more than you, but what proof do you have that they're trustworthy.

 

No you're  bloody not. You're better off educating yourself a little bit and understanding how they bullshit you at times.

 

Like why do you think so many idiots support Sanders and Trump here, cause they really know nothing and just listen to "experts"

 

You just willingly became their sock puppet mouth piece. 

 

This isn't directed at the left or the right, both lie to people hoping they're sheep. And our generation loves to eat their s*** right up

I'm not going to do anything more than point out that there are a few fallacies involved in blaming a specific generation for behaviour that is likely performed by people from all generations. This is so as not to derail the thread onto an 'attack/defend millennials' theme.

 

I have no proof that they are trustworthy, but then how can we 'prove' that any expert is trustworthy? And before we know it, we're off down a metaphorical rabbit hole of flat earth-ing, Bush-did-9/11-ing and alternative medicine.

 

And sorry, but my brain just isn't cut out for understanding complex economics. And I refuse to fall to the cognitive bias of trusting my own judgement over that of someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

Finally, I only threw in the 9/10 economists thing to bring some statistics to this thread. This is the main reason that I will be voting to remain in the EU:

• The EU imposes restrictions on the amount of greenhouse gases that companies are allowed to emit while operating in the UK. While these restrictions don't go nearly far enough, they are better than having no restrictions at all, which would be the case were the UK to leave the EU.

There are other reasons, but it's half past midnight at the moment, so I really can't be bothered since you're not voting anyway.

[Aerion Brightflame]

There's nothing wrong with trusting expert opinions so long as you don't take it at face value immediately - Look for a consensus and if possible look at the actual credentials of the expert. 

 

It's nothing to do with it being generational, it's just the fact the media on the whole is a lot less likely to represent facts properly. Baby Boomers do this just as much as millenials do - Hell millennials are probably more likely to avoid this kind of bull because we know how to use the internet more effectively. We have a much wider range of sources to look at, assuming we are willing to. Admittedly most education systems suck at instilling critical thinking in people but hey, that's been a fault for decades now.

 

Don't blame our generation, blame the media for being sheet and distorting what an 'expert' means. 

 

Also Sovereignty is a weaker ideal in a world where the actions of each country has massive repercussions. sheet like climate change can't be dealt with by dealing solely with the needs of your nation it has to deal with the needs of the world. It's simply stuff we have to be concerned about nowadays even if it means shitting on a few nations in the process. 

[Azure Wolf]

If I could vote, can't vote until December, I would be voting to remain. Haven't looked much into it but having to start getting passport checks along the border of NI and the ROI would cost money and is sort of a reason I would rather stay. Also I would trust the Remain party more than the Leave as the arguments just seem better.

[mido9]

There's nothing wrong with trusting expert opinions so long as you don't take it at face value immediately - Look for a consensus and if possible look at the actual credentials of the expert. 

I mean, many of those experts couldn't see Greece's lies to enter the EU, couldn't avert the disaster of its debt crisis when there was an almost 10 year warning(and aren't doing anything to stop spain's), couldn't see the costs of the middle east's wars(1 year prediction for iraq. Hah.), couldn't predict either of the last two bubbles, and predicted that the EU would strengthen growth and for almost 15 years Europe has the slowest GDP growth in the world.

 

So when it comes to predicting the future, "political experts" can guess MAYBE the weather at tops, in my opinion.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I mean, many of those experts couldn't see Greece's lies to enter the EU, couldn't avert the disaster of its debt crisis when there was an almost 10 year warning(and aren't doing anything to stop spain's), couldn't see the costs of the middle east's wars(1 year prediction for iraq. Hah.), couldn't predict either of the last two bubbles, and predicted that the EU would strengthen growth and for almost 15 years Europe has the slowest GDP growth in the world.

 

So when it comes to predicting the future, "political experts" can guess MAYBE the weather at tops, in my opinion.

 

Okay..? 

 

These people still have a more intimate understanding of economics in the real world than I will. I can educate myself enough to understand there arguments if they make them, but they are still going to make better judgements than I will when given the same data. Especially given Economics to my understanding functions more like an art than a science, given the amount of variables that influence it. 

 

Because it's funny you use the example of the Weather since that's a great comparison - Despite the array of data available to meteorologists at any given time, actually predicting the specific outcome becomes f***ing hard because so many tiny variables can have huge unforeseen repercussions on the end results, and it leaves them looking like idiots. 

 

But I'd still trust a meteorologists interpretation of the available facts over mine after I've read a few books. For me the same is true for economics. 

 

Can I ask this: Are you sure it's not just confirmation bias at work in your argument? Are you just blaming them for missing these things with the knowledge that it happened and the idea that as 'experts' they should have seen them all coming? Or have you actually looked at the information they had on hand before these events and judged them to be incompetant for not spotting something? Because that is kinda important to remember - That we have a lot more information about these events now that the economists did when they made whatever calls they made. 

 

Again my take is just don't take them at face value. Not disregard them entirely, but just be decently skeptical. 

[vla1ne]

Sovereignty is a ridiculous thing to want anyway. If you think sovereignty is a good thing, then logically you should also be for breaking up the UK into its constituent countries, and for breaking up those into their constituent counties and those into classical-style city states. How is it possible to non-arbitrarily determine that the amount of sovereignty we have at the moment is the 'correct' amount of sovereignty? I'll bet you can't.

 

Historically, groups of people have banded together because teamwork and cooperation makes us stronger. Would any of the states of the United States of America have got as far as it did if they weren't united?

 

Sovereignty brings no inherent utility. We'd simply be handing control from one group of elites (the EU) to another (the Tories).

 

 

 

and if you are against controlling your own country, then you should be proud of the fact that your country has had no say in anything the EU has put forwards to this day. all objections your country has put forward in relation to new bills have been ignored or shot down, and your representatives have been disrespected in the very court room where of the EU makes decisions, your country has enough clout and power within the EU on it's own that the deals for immunity to future policies went through with minor trouble, and countries like greece and spain are apparently looking to your country in regards to whether or not they break away. yet your country has been among the lowest favored in the entire organization to this point, does that make any sense to you? you live within what was one of the most powerful countries in the world, and have, i believe the fifth or sixth most powerful economy at the current moment, and your country has been steadily getting pushed around the EU floor.

 

the US was built under, and operates under, a completely different set of rules from the EU, teamwork and cooperation mean nothing when your voice is drowned out if it's anything but supportive in the echo chamber. your country is built upon a different set of rules than america, but i assume the people still have some form of voice. and right now you'd rather give up your voice than work to establish your freedom. you aren't joining countries that were established under similar grounds, you aren't building the EU from the ground up, it's being built from the top down, it might succeed of fail, but in either case, Britain's is it's own country right now, and this is the only shot at remaining as such. you can either hold that title with pride, and make the effort to grow it as it's own sovereign nation, or you can remove it and latch on under the EU. you don't care about that though, so we won't see eye to eye here regardless.

 

you have a worldview in that area completely alien to me, i said it already, i don't have a dog in the fight, so i really don't care one way or the other, but you can't change if you aren't willing to struggle for it, britain isn't as weak as you seem to think, and the only way your economy would collapse the way economists are predicting is if you broke off from the EU immediately and cut all ties the next day. that's probably not how the system would work though, i could be wrong here, but there would be quite a bit of paperwork and red tape to cut through before the effects set in, and in that time, so long as you can compose a proper economics plan, including trading, outsourcing, deal making, EU cooperation, and taxing, you could make it out with minimal losses. not as easy as i make it sound, i know, but if you value your country, over being told what to do by outside sources, then you'd vote to leave. sovereignty brings the ability to set your own rules, under the EU, you will have absolutely no say in the rules, you might have a deal set to be immune to absorption, but you'll only ever be the out group until you abandon the freedoms that cameron is negotiating for. you already are, and you will remain such until you give in. either make your own way, or accept everything that comes with joining the crowd. you lose what? 3 million jobs from within the EU? you would then have to open up even more jobs relating to trade and other related facilities. it's not a direct negative, it would all depend upon the size of the shift towards trading. alongside conquering other countries, britain's got a rich history of trade, you still import and export more than practically any other country in the EU, on a side note, are you seriously saying that you trust the EU more than your own country? no government is immune to corruption, and the farther your government is from you, the less you can control said corruption. I'm pretty sure the EU has already been called out on it's spending habits as is, there is no guarantee that you'll be getting an uncorrupted government just because you rely on the one that's more "unified"

 

in fact, oliver was somewhat wrong in his estimations and statements. for one, he was right about the people he showed being racists (that fat lady was racist to a comical degree) but he then attempted to cover the entire movement as if it were. it's people having pride in their country, and wanting to make it thrive without relying on outside help. or giving up their national identity. there is nothing wrong with that in moderation, and it's not too hard to see why they'd have a bit of pride considering the power your country wielded in the past. as far as his money statement, he didn't factor the shifts in jobs, including the new job opportunities negotiating with the EU instead of within the EU. the time taken to separate which would lead to a more balanced departure instead of the financial fiasco hurriedly predicted. the refunneling of money that would occur if britain no longer has to send money out of the country, meaning britain wouldn't be taking a direct negative with those profits either.  the amount of new trade jobs that would open in the wake of separating. the release of foreign prisoners (reducing the cost of prison maintenance).  the reduced costs of regulations within britain rom not having to adhere to the more costly regulations at such a breakneck pace. the ability to place a cap on, and properly screen, the amount of immigrants accepted into the country, unlike the "borderless" rule that's currently in effect. the ability to set it's own taxes, while developing more small businesses, upon leaving.there are a lot of plusses that oliver left out in his statement, he's not wrong, there are plenty of benefits to staying as well, but just because the UK has clout, doesn't mean it has power. they send more to britain than they accept from britain, meaning they'd take more damage than britain if they played the tax game. britain might export a lot, but unless they decide to raise taxes on britain higher than they do for other countries (which would be purely spiteful, and easy to call out/exploit) britain can still gain more than it would lose from trading.

 

don't sell your home short man, you don't need to be flagrantly prideful in your country, but at least try to have a little bit of pride in your sovereignty, you are (maybe not you if you can't vote, but regardless) looking at history in the making, look at the side of leaving, and try to understand the reason they support standing on their own.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I found a historical artifact

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

To quote myself on facebook: 

 

So out of two shitty campaigns (Because both sides were sheet) that played off of fear instead of facts, the one we as a generation liked less won. It's a shame but that's politics.

All I would say is, instead of just yelling abuse at the otherside, we work together to address the issues, and to make the best of this decision. We are the ones who have to live with it, so we should get involved to make sure it's not awful for us.

Like you can argue that the 'uneducated' were the ones to ensure this result all you want - But if that is an issue, unless we do something about it, it will still be an issue 5 or 10 years down the line. Instead of abuse, we should advocate for actions. Get more people involved and educated about politics, about economics, about the way the media works. Get people to think and discuss the issues instead of the rhetoric. We might have voted brexit, but we can and should still challenge ignorance and we can still make something from this.

Now is the worst time to get turned away from politics because of the result, because the decisions we make as a nation in the aftermath of this mean everything.

 

If you got involved in the election, stay involved so you can work to make the end result as favourable towards us as we can. Politics is, as ever a compromise, so letting the result dissuade you at this time is an awful idea. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I kinda agree with Barty the PM resigning ATM really can't help smooth the transition

[~~~~]

I kinda agree with Barty the PM resigning ATM really can't help smooth the transition

Who is Barty?

As long as Corbyn doesn't resign idc tbh

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Who is Barty?

As long as Corbyn doesn't resign idc tbh

Didn't 50+ labor MP wanna out him? Also something about a shadow cabinet wanting him out?

 

Barty=Bright Fires

[Aerion Brightflame]

Didn't 50+ labor MP wanna out him? Also something about a shadow cabinet wanting him out?

 

He's never had the support of his MP's as much as he's had public support. He was nowhere near a favourite going into the labour elections and yet he won very comfortably when it came to the actual voting. 

 

In the UK, the Shadow Cabinet despite sounding like a Sith organisation is simply the name of the opposition. In effect Corbyn is the leader of the shadow cabinet, so them wanting him out is just them calling for him to stop being Labour leader. 

 

Currently 2 MP's have put forth a vote of no confidence, which will be voted upon by labour MP's next week and may end up in him resign. But it's only two MP's so it's also possible that won't happen. 

 

And Cameron resigning is irritating because both his successors are awful choices, but I perfectly understand why. He was the majority leader of the Tories who promised a referendum on the EU, delivered it and had it blow up in his face. It is not shocking he chose to step down. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

In the UK, the Shadow Cabinet despite sounding like a Sith organisation is simply the name of the opposition. 

 

As everyone knows, the British sith are particularly villainous.

 

Oh and bye David Cameron!

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He's never had the support of his MP's as much as he's had public support. He was nowhere near a favourite going into the labour elections and yet he won very comfortably when it came to the actual voting. 

 

In the UK, the Shadow Cabinet despite sounding like a Sith organisation is simply the name of the opposition. In effect Corbyn is the leader of the shadow cabinet, so them wanting him out is just them calling for him to stop being Labour leader. 

 

Currently 2 MP's have put forth a vote of no confidence, which will be voted upon by labour MP's next week and may end up in him resign. But it's only two MP's so it's also possible that won't happen. 

 

And Cameron resigning is irritating because both his successors are awful choices, but I perfectly understand why. He was the majority leader of the Tories who promised a referendum on the EU, delivered it and had it blow up in his face. It is not shocking he chose to step down. 

Times are changing maybe? The lib Dem guys was railing on him for not being able to control his voters?

 

AR50 takes 2 years to work, so the UK is basically a sitting duck for 2 years unless I misunderstood. And Boris apparently isn't in a hurry to leave

 

Yeah haha, Shadow Chancellor, Vote of No Confidence, a major referendum -- getting them Phantom Menace vibes

 

I've read that the two were "senior" members? Does that mean they'd have more pull? But agreed, regardless of his personal disgrace, the last thing the UK needs currently is more uncertainty. What's wrong with Boris? He seems very Paul Ryanish to me

 

Brexit isn't all bad, Gold Spikes and Mortgage lows can be used quite effectively now. I just hope more people like your parents and less like the 0.1% (assuming they're not) get to reap the benefits

 

That being said, this is global movement. Just look at Austria for a near miss if nothing else

[Aerion Brightflame]

It takes 2 years because it requires a frankly immense amount of negotiation over basically every facet of UK business. And that's without considering the equivilant paperwork. 

 

Up until that point we are still an EU member however, all our existing deals and such are still in place. So we aren't technically more vulnerable or anything, we aren't just thrown amongst the Wolves before we've had any chance to do anything. 

 

And Corbyn was voted in with a massive amount of support but that hasn't lasted, and he hasn't made monumental gains. His party still really dislike him, and he's seen by some as very passive. He refuses to play the game in the same sense others do, which often makes him look either refined or idiotic depending on your stance. To put it in terms you might more easily understand, he's basically Doran Martell. Only without a massive plan that we know of.