The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Buzzer]

That is what every country is about. Adding value wherever possible and turning a profit. It is self-interest and for me remaining is about self-interest.

Poor governance, environmental, and social factors also play in to undeveloped economies in Africa. So much of Western aid is focuses on these factors. Why is it that Africa is still largely a primary resource economy? Yes there are deep structural impediments, but there are also governance problems which prevent economic development.

There is nothing wrong with Germany or anyone else finding a way to add value to a product.

Blimey! So when us Brexiteers talk about self-interest we're Little Englanders but when EU screw 3rd world nations it's all good. So much flim-flam from you. Poor governance and deep structural impediments in Kenya does not prevent the EU from revising its punitive tariffs so that Kenya can export processed cocoa and coffee.

That is the point and it won't happen until we lose the self-interest and become good world citizens. So your bullet point about what has the EU ever done for us should add the caveat that we co-operate with African nations and support democracy and development in those countries only up to the point that it is no longer profitable for the EU to do so, European self-interest being the key.

Gotcha.

 

[Diablo]

John Major in the Mail today puts it all very succinctly. Common-sense conservatism

Project Fear? No, saying that Brexit would leave us poorer, weaker and less safe is simply... Project Reality, writes JOHN MAJOR

During the past few days in Hong Kong I have been asked repeatedly if the UK will leave the European Union.
Almost without exception the questioners, often investors in Britain, think it is a bad idea.
I will not quote their warnings, given in private, but let the public remarks of Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, a large investor in the UK, speak for many: ‘If Brexit really happens,’ he told Bloomberg, ‘we will surely decrease our investments.’

Mr Li is not alone. As we move towards the referendum in June, the UK has been warned against exit by, among others, China, Japan, America, New Zealand and Australia; by the G20; the Governor of the Bank of England; our military leaders; our leading academics and scientists; and a majority of large and small businesses.
In response, advocates of Brexit accuse these sources of ‘interfering’ if they are foreign or ‘scaremongering’ if they are British.


The Out campaign labels such warnings as Project Fear. I disagree. In truth, it is Project Reality, and the public has a right to be told what is likely to happen if the UK leaves.
Let me set out my own position. As Prime Minister I refused to join the euro currency. I believed it to be premature and risky.
I opted out of the Social Chapter since, at the time, it seemed to give rights to those in work at the expense of denying work to the millions who were not.
And, when it was introduced, I refused to enter the Schengen agreement on open borders.
I am no starry-eyed Europe enthusiast. Yet I have not a shred of doubt that the UK should remain in the EU. The case for remaining is not just economic.


The outcome of the referendum will decide what sort of country we are and what our contribution to the world will be.
When the UK joined the then Common Market our economy was the ‘sick man’ of Europe. Today, thanks to our domestic reforms, together with membership of the single market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.
Within 20 years the UK is likely – not certain, but likely – to be the biggest economy in Europe: bigger than Germany.
I am not a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril. A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.
John Major
On issues such as climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress with our fellow Europeans.
The underlying mantra of the Out campaign is – and I use their words – ‘I want my country back’. It is an emotional appeal, but a bogus one.
If emotion triumphs over reality, we will lose power, prestige, security and some of our future economic wellbeing.
At present, our world is very disturbed. Uncertain. The scales have fallen from our eyes over President Putin.
I am not a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril. A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.
The faults and frustrations of the EU are widely publicised in the UK: its achievements, less so. But they should be. Across Europe, ancient enemies of many years now work alongside each other.
The EU was the magnet that helped Spain, Portugal and Greece free themselves from fascist dictatorships. It helped the political climate that brought about the Northern Ireland peace process.

It helped rebuild and heal the Balkans after a terrible conflict. And enlargement of the EU has brought a new future to nations once imprisoned within the Soviet Empire.
If the UK leaves the EU, the impact will be felt widely and negatively – not only here but across the EU.
If the UK departs, the EU will lose its fastest growing economy, one of only two nuclear powers, and the country with the deepest foreign policy reach.
As a result, the EU would be gravely weakened, especially when set against the power of the US and China. Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would bow out of superpower influence.
Does the UK really wish for that? Does she really wish to abdicate her role in European and global influence? I truly think not.
There are hard questions for the UK too. Would external investors – China, Japan, America – be more or less likely to invest if the UK shrank to a domestic market of under 65 million, rather than remaining in a Europe-wide market of more than 500 million?
The answer is clear: the UK would lose investment and jobs.
British exports to Europe are 40-45 per cent of our exports: 14 per cent of our wealth. Across the EU, the other 27 member states send only 7 per cent of their total exports to us: 2.5 per cent of their wealth.
In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. If the UK exits the EU, our partners will not be the supplicant in any negotiations on our future access to the single market – the UK will be.
Moreover, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the Out campaign to assume our partners – having been rebuffed, deserted and weakened – will feel so well disposed towards the UK that they will be eager to accede to our demands.
I fear the reverse will be true. A divorce at the behest of one partner is rarely harmonious – or cheap.
By leaving the UK will have gravely weakened the whole EU. Some countries will see 50 years of ambition imperilled – and will hardly wish to reward us for that.
And if we wished such a deal to include services, or the removal of hidden non-tariff barriers, it may be a long time coming, not least as it would need the approval of 27 member states – many of them angry and disappointed at our departure.


Of course, the UK would have to accept free movement of people. If we refused there would be no trade deal, as Germany, for one, has made clear.
By leaving, we would be withdrawing from EU free-trade agreements with 53 countries negotiated on behalf of all member states, covering 60 per cent of UK trade.
They will all need renegotiation: a tough and almost certainly lengthy process. It is self-deception to believe under 65 million Britons will get the same favourable terms as 500 million Europeans.
To brush aside such realities is to play Russian roulette with our economic future.
On one side we have the nostalgia of an Out campaign aching for a past that has long gone.
On the other, those who wish to remain are not European dreamers: we are realists who see an edgy, uncomfortable world and believe the UK is safer, more secure and better off staying with our partners.
The Out advocates, whether in enthusiasm or ignorance, lace their argument with false statistics and unlikely scenarios. They promise negotiating gains that cannot be delivered.
They hail the purported gains of leaving Europe, while ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks. Nor can they tell us how they actually see the UK outside of Europe. This is simply astonishing.
I have no doubt an exit from the EU would harm our nation, now and in the future. We must not let an emotional spasm of faux-patriotism overcome the realities of the modern world and spin us out of Europe.
We would soon regret it, and our children and grandchildren would regret it even more.
I hope and believe that good sense will prevail on June 23 and we can finally lay this particular ghost to rest.
I have no doubt that, once it is, our international investors will breathe a large sigh of relief… as most definitely will I.

Blimey can`t read all that...Are you in or out ? two or three letter reply please.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Most people are just 'shake it all about'

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

i appreciate what you're saying but the fact is that prior to joining the eu the uk was the sick man of europe. 3 day weeks, strikes etc. The country wasn't working. The eu forced us to compete and up our game - we're now the second richest country in europe and have all the fundamentals needed to embrace a 21st century global economy. Living standards have risen consistently inside the eu. When you talk about wages being undercut i understand what you're saying but by having a more flexible work force we also have a more resilient one, not reliant on state contracts or kick-backs. We're in a global race and pulling up the draw bridge will in the long term make us poorer not richer, living standards will decline if our economy also declines. Brexit, as numerous studies have suggested from the private and public sector, will weaken our economy, weaken standards of living in the uk.

I think more training, specialisation and apprenticeships are very important to craft a niche in such an economy. This forces people to raise their game and their productivity. In the long run this is much healthier for the country. Also who is actually building things that construction workers work on? If you look at london there is construction practically on every street - employing thousands, why? Foreign investment setting up headquarters and businesses here because we're such a great place to do business. I'm sure german workers will be happy for the extra work the next time a multinational is looking for a european hq.

i think you're the sick one , were you even alive when we weren't in the EU
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Got my booklet through the door today, on page two, one the bullet points reads that by staying in the EU we can control our borders
It's just the usual crap we have heard over and over again.

Apparently the falling pound will make our food more expensive, well it's been falling for the past 6 months but I don't see anyone complaining about the price of food at Lidl and Aldi.

nothing but speculation and spin
regards
DR

 

[Buzzer]

Got my booklet through the door today

Me too. Apparently, it may also contain a rather large error in one of its claims. Page 8 "less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK". Apparently the figure is much nearer to nearly 18%

http://www.pollstation.uk/eu-referendum/are-the-governments-facts-on-eu-trade-correct/

 

[5ways]

Blimey! So when us Brexiteers talk about self-interest we're Little Englanders but when EU screw 3rd world nations it's all good. So much flim-flam from you. Poor governance and deep structural impediments in Kenya does not prevent the EU from revising its punitive tariffs so that Kenya can export processed cocoa and coffee.

That is the point and it won't happen until we lose the self-interest and become good world citizens. So your bullet point about what has the EU ever done for us should add the caveat that we co-operate with African nations and support democracy and development in those countries only up to the point that it is no longer profitable for the EU to do so, European self-interest being the key.

Gotcha.

I know that the deck is stacked against developing countries. They have weak and ineffective tax regimes, little leverage in global trade, and many have fallen into the 'resource curse' that prevents them from diversifying their economies. Along with everything else. But let's be clear; power is the currency of politics and the primary aim of any state is always to increase its power. The EU exists because we are stronger when we pool power, especially in areas like trade. This is not at the expense of other states per se, but it is to create the most advantageous scenario possible for you. Why would any country voluntarily weaken its position?

We cooperate with other countries economically and in terms of security because down the line it makes us safer/richer. We support economic development so that more people can be part of the global economy - it's not zero-sum, a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[5ways]

Blimey can`t read all that...Are you in or out ? two or three letter reply please.

I'm IN like elder statesman Major

It's good tabloid fare in that each sentence is its own argument. So if you don't feel like chewing throw the whole thing pick any sentence at random, it's all good

 

[Buzzer]

I know that the deck is stacked against developing countries. They have weak and ineffective tax regimes, little leverage in global trade, and many have fallen into the 'resource curse' that prevents them from diversifying their economies. Along with everything else. But let's be clear; power is the currency of politics and the primary aim of any state is always to increase its power. The EU exists because we are stronger when we pool power, especially in areas like trade. This is not at the expense of other states per se, but it is to create the most advantageous scenario possible for you. Why would any country voluntarily weaken its position?

We cooperate with other countries economically and in terms of security because down the line it makes us safer/richer. We support economic development so that more people can be part of the global economy - it's not zero-sum, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Yes. The EU stacked the deck and makes sure that it remains stacked. And it looks pretty clear that you would never want to change the status quo so that Africa could trade more fairly with the EU and what you have just described there in your scenario is some sort of trickle-down democracy.

Thanks, yet another reason for people with their eye on what the UK can do to be better world citizens to consider Brexit.

 

[5ways]

Yes. The EU stacked the deck and makes sure that it remains stacked. And it looks pretty clear that you would never want to change the status quo so that Africa could trade more fairly with the EU and what you have just described there in your scenario is some sort of trickle-down democracy.

Thanks, yet another reason for people with their eye on what the UK can do to be better world citizens to consider Brexit.

No - the EU did not stack the deck. It does what every state has done and will always do; try to protect itself and advance its position - this is the universal rule of states. The status quo rarely changes unless it is forced to. The UK didn't decide it was no longer a world power, it was forced by the US to abandon all pretence. The UK wants lots of steel-making jobs, well there is no market for it and you can't force anyone else to buy your steel or stop producing it.

This is why things like climate change are so difficult to address, you can't really force China or India to stop burning coal because the benefit still outweighs the cost. Or in business it's easier to make petrol cars but people want electric ones, so BMW builds electric cars. The EU is a moral power but this moral authority (climate change, support of former Eastern bloc, liberal values) is a force because there is real heft behind it. The EU is not going to make itself less competitive for no reason, nor would the UK.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Me too. Apparently, it may also contain a rather large error in one of its claims. Page 8 "less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK". Apparently the figure is much nearer to nearly 18%

http://www.pollstation.uk/eu-referendum/are-the-governments-facts-on-eu-trade-correct/

Not decided what to do with this garbage yet.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Not decided what to do with this garbage yet.

wipe your arse with it ?
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

No - the EU did not stack the deck. It does what every state has done and will always do; try to protect itself and advance its position - this is the universal rule of states. The status quo rarely changes unless it is forced to. The UK didn't decide it was no longer a world power, it was forced by the US to abandon all pretence. The UK wants lots of steel-making jobs, well there is no market for it and you can't force anyone else to buy your steel or stop producing it.

This is why things like climate change are so difficult to address, you can't really force China or India to stop burning coal because the benefit still outweighs the cost. Or in business it's easier to make petrol cars but people want electric ones, so BMW builds electric cars. The EU is a moral power but this moral authority (climate change, support of former Eastern bloc, liberal values) is a force because there is real heft behind it. The EU is not going to make itself less competitive for no reason, nor would the UK.

GIVE IT A REST , the country was hoodwinked into a common market entry now we've lost our identity FACT
regards
DR

 

[Buzzer]

No - the EU did not stack the deck. It does what every state has done and will always do; try to protect itself and advance its position - this is the universal rule of states.

The EU is not a state and there is no universal rule of state. All you are describing is a Machiavellian approach to statehood. The EU has stacked the deck against its competitors through tariffs and charges which is fine if you're trading with Malaysia, the US or Australia but we appear to go very hard against 3rd world countries because they are weak. We act as bullies.

The EU is not going to make itself less competitive for no reason, nor would the UK.

Reduce the tariffs for 3rd world countries, make the trade deals fairer and in return reduce loans and handouts which offsets some of the costs in the short term. In the medium and long term, the 3rd world countries can become wealthier, they become more stable, better chance of developing and growing their middle-classes which are essential to pay taxes. vote and run the country. They have a better chance of self-sufficiency and we and them don't think of Africa as a basket-case. Industry improves, health improves, social conditions improve, human rights improve. They import less weapons and more machinery, medicines and books. More people stop leaving their 3rd world countries for a life in Europe, more people stop trying to kill Europeans in Europe.

 

[5ways]

The EU is not a state and there is no universal rule of state. All you are describing is a Machiavellian approach to statehood. The EU has stacked the deck against its competitors through tariffs and charges which is fine if you're trading with Malaysia, the US or Australia but we appear to go very hard against 3rd world countries because they are weak. We act as bullies.



Reduce the tariffs for 3rd world countries, make the trade deals fairer and in return reduce loans and handouts which offsets some of the costs in the short term. In the medium and long term, the 3rd world countries can become wealthier, they become more stable, better chance of developing and growing their middle-classes which are essential to pay taxes. vote and run the country. They have a better chance of self-sufficiency and we and them don't think of Africa as a basket-case. Industry improves, health improves, social conditions improve, human rights improve. They import less weapons and more machinery, medicines and books. More people stop leaving their 3rd world countries for a life in Europe, more people stop trying to kill Europeans in Europe.

State is the wrong word. Actor maybe, the EU is unique. Regardless it's not Machiavellian, any approach to international politics is ultimately about the uses of power. Whatever a state does it does to increase its power, it could be 'hard' power (military) or 'soft' power (aid) but its done to ultimately improve the actor's position.

Tariffs exist to protect yourself, it's raw self-interest. It would be nice if we wrote fairer trade deals but that too is about power. This is why it is so important that when the EU negotiates trade deals it does so as the largest single market and 23% of global GDP. The UK alone is 3% of GDP and would get a worse deal. African states are much lower still and this is reflected in the deal they get, but they cannot compel the EU to reduce tariff barriers in the same way China can get the EU to.

 

[Buzzer]

State is the wrong word. Actor maybe, the EU is unique. Regardless it's not Machiavellian, any approach to international politics is ultimately about the uses of power.

Forget what you understand to mean by "Machiavellian". I suggest you read Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. It's all about statehood and describes exactly how you view international politics. You describe it as about power ("raw self-interest" you called it) and opportunities of improving the state's position. What an amoral, cold, inhuman interpretation you have and if nation states are like that then the EU is bound to fail because the naked self-interest of its individual members will always prevent honest co-operation.

But you're totally wrong for several reasons. A nation state doesn't form from nothing, it's the sum of its people and the character of the state is the culture and character of its people and people are not all about power and naked self-interest. We have a welfare system in this country that we are all proud of that proves me right.

The second reason you are wrong is because your obsession with relative power seems to focus on economic. Basically you are saying that big business is good for us because big business is powerful and makes our country richer. All you are arguing for is the status quo that many of us across Europe and beyond despise the EU for - that the EU exists so that big businesses can manipulate the markets and the laws of sovereign states so they can make more profits. B*ll*cks to that, let's have a free market as Adam Smith would describe it not one dictated by the shareholders of Glaxo and Pfizer.

Seriously, I don't much care for your vision of what the EU stands for. It stinks.

 

[5ways]

Forget what you understand to mean by "Machiavellian". I suggest you read Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. It's all about statehood and describes exactly how you view international politics. You describe it as about power ("raw self-interest" you called it) and opportunities of improving the state's position. What an amoral, cold, inhuman interpretation you have and if nation states are like that then the EU is bound to fail because the naked self-interest of its individual members will always prevent honest co-operation.

But you're totally wrong for several reasons. A nation state doesn't form from nothing, it's the sum of its people and the character of the state is the culture and character of its people and people are not all about power and naked self-interest. We have a welfare system in this country that we are all proud of that proves me right.

The second reason you are wrong is because your obsession with relative power seems to focus on economic. Basically you are saying that big business is good for us because big business is powerful and makes our country richer. All you are arguing for is the status quo that many of us across Europe and beyond despise the EU for - that the EU exists so that big businesses can manipulate the markets and the laws of sovereign states so they can make more profits. B*ll*cks to that, let's have a free market as Adam Smith would describe it not one dictated by the shareholders of Glaxo and Pfizer.

Seriously, I don't much care for your vision of what the EU stands for. It stinks.

I'm familiar with the Prince and yes it is a dark and miserable view of the world exploiting and manipulating your rivals - but that isn't what I'm saying. I'm not a realist and I don't really disagree in principal with reducing tariffs for developing countries. It is worth remembering that other non-Western developed states, Japan the best example, had very high tariffs on external goods to support domestic industry and only embraced free trade when they were set-up to do so.

Developing countries in Africa don't have the opportunity. That's unfair, but it's not my point. Take a liberal, realist, Marxist view etc it is about how you conceive of and utilise power. I'm not saying that the distribution of power is fair or right but I am saying that that distribution determines the ability of states to follow their own interests. These interests diverge and the outcome of who is successful depends on each states ability to leverage its power, be it economic, political or militarily.

I think you're right about the domestic society reflecting the state's ideology at an international level. The EU poses an intriguing example because there is only a weak society-state feedback mechanism (Council of Ministers, EU Parliament), thus you could argue the EU will be less 'reflective' and more technocratic and direct in pursuing its interests at an international level. All i'm saying is the EU will always try to benefit its member states over that of non-members. Tariffs are a means to achieve this and reflect the relative imbalance in power between the EU and African states.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm familiar with the Prince and yes it is a dark and miserable view of the world exploiting and manipulating your rivals - but that isn't what I'm saying.

It's exactly what you are saying. I'm sorry but the rest of what you write is just bluster IMHO.

Edit - The Prince isn't "a dark and miserable view of the world" it's far more complex.

 

[brighton bluenose]

If they want to trade with you. And you have to set these up, which will take time. These things don't just happen over night, shall I come back in 10-15 years?

We are France and Germanys biggest market - why on earth would they NOT want to trade with us?!!

 

[The Rivet]

We are France and Germanys biggest market - why on earth would they NOT want to trade with us?!!

Leave him alone.......he is just disillusioned. Is that a crime....

Ht is a beacon of certainty! I am being what I accused him of, sarcastic.