Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[classical_hero]

That's the point of a common agricultural policy : alone many countries can't feed their people without import, but together we can try to make the EU produce enough food for the EU. Which is pretty much the case right now.

CAP is a terrible policy and it's a failure, yet too many people rely on this outdated policy which is Europe is never going to be what it can be if it gets rid of this stupid policy.

 

[HAND]

The fund manager Neil Woodford says "Brexit could benefit UK economy":

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/brexit-benefits-neil-woodford-fund-manager-capital-economics-report

 

[Arakhor]

The G20 would seem to disagree.

 

[HAND]

The G20 would seem to disagree.

Yes, doesn't surprise me to be honest. Finance ministers are still politicians nevertheless.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that, and the fact that you can get 11 differing opinions from just ten economists.

 

[gay_Aleks]

On a good day. I'd say it'd be closer to n+5 opinions, where n represents the number of economists.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So doesnt matter if you have 1 or 10,000 economists, you will always have five extra opinions. Weird.

And you will have those 5 opinions even without any economist. That is even weirder.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Much preferable to the n+1 formula, according to which, if there's no economists, there's only one true opinion.

And That Is Bad.

 

[Borachio]

That's citizenship. National identity is not the same as citizenship within a particular state. A nation is not the same as a state.

Also, to be honest what they were telling you in England 45 years ago probably reflects a pretty unevolved understanding of the difference between English and British and between nationality and citizenship. I mean, weren't you guys still coming to terms with losing all your colonies in 1970? It was 12 years since Suez, you still ruled territories in Africa, South America and the Pacific. Identity within the UK state would have been a pretty different question back then.

Actually, I guess you're more or less right; in your first paragraph. '(Or at least so nearly right that it's not worth arguing the finer points.)

However...

One really major marker of ethnicity in England is accent. If someone has a Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish accent then, as far as I and they are considered, they really are Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish. And I don't see why they'd fill in a census form in any other way.

And as for having an unevolved idea of the difference between English and British, I'd beg to differ. I haven't actually been resident anywhere else.

 

[HAND]

Has anyone read the Neil Woodford article I posted? I recommend it as a good counter balance to the rolling "Brexit shock says G20" BBC headline.

 

[Agent327]

A short while ago there was some hubbub over the 'ever closer union' clause. An attentive reader sent in a letter, pointing that this clause was included in the Maastricht Treaty, because Cameron's predecessor Major preferred it to the proposed 'union with a federal goal'.

How tricky Cameron's position currently is, is also shown by his jubilant "We will never be part of the eurozone, the Schengen area, a European army, or a European superstate". The last two are not likely to appear in the foreseeable (or even distant) future anyway, and the first two basically sum up Britain's current position, as the UK is neither in the eurozone nor part of the Schengen area.

The G20 would seem to disagree.

As would the British government if they'd published the results of the audit performed to investigate the costs of EU membership to companies. Apparently, most companies actually profit from EU membership and the audit ended up in a drawer, as the government can't presently appear to be pro-EU.

 

[Flying Pig]

As it was, the CBI then went and announced much the same thing anyway. This could go either way - while most people don't like being told what to do by businessmen, I think we generally trust them to be good at making money.

 

[Oerdin]

I was amazed to see Brett is polling slightly ahead of remaining.

 

[s0nny80y]

folk eu
reinforce nato

 

[Mise]

I doubt that the UK will leave the EU. Those poll numbers fluctuate wildly; a few months ago, a clear majority wanted to stay. There isn't a strong enough case to leave the EU: the "Out" camp will depend on arguments such as "Europe sucks" and "Look how bad things are over there", since this is ultimately where the fluctuations in poll numbers originate. There are maybe 30% of the population who will vote Out irrespective of any arguments made. On the other side, there are maybe 40% who will vote In similarly. So there are 30% of "swing" voters who might be persuaded one way or the other. The polls show that these swing voters are highly correlated with how much bad press the EU is getting right now. The recent surge in anti-EU sentiment, driven by the refugee crisis, has caused these swing voters to lean "Out". Therefore, expect a fair bit bad press about the EU in the coming months from Eurosceptic papers, and for the Out crowd to bang on about how much the EU sucks. Meanwhile, the "In" side will be able to make a positive case for staying in the EU, with all 3 major parties in support. They can also depend on better news about the EU in the future -- if the Eurozone economy picks up, if the UK economy starts taking hits while the EU isn't doing so bad, or as the refugee crisis disappears from headlines, the pendulum will swing back the other way. So this referendum will probably be won by the In campaign, (a) because they have a bit of a head-start in the polls, and (b) because their appeal to swing voters won't be so dependent on the EU looking crap compared to the UK.

 

[Yeekim]

Guys, please, don't leave us alone with the French and the Germans!

 

[gangleri2001]

The EU is the enemy of Europe. Fighting against it with all your forces is a duty.

 

[innonimatu]

The EU is the enemy of Europe. Fighting against it with all your forces is a duty.

I understand what you meand. But one correction. Europe is just a piece of geography, the EU is the enemy of europeans, who are being very much screwed in all aspects (economic, social, diplomatic) by the insane policies enacted by the self-styled "european leaders", which they cannot change in their national elections unless they're willing to exit (or preferably, put an end to) the EU.

The EU was sold as a "dream". But in reality all it has been, all it can be, is a shield for incompetent and malicions politicians. There is no "european dream" keeping it going. Only a "european threat".

And that is visible every time it is put to the vote. The argument for the "keep the EU" campaign is never that the EU is good, it is that people should fear to leave it. The EU was borne mainly out of fear (that european countries would by themselves bee "small" in the world) and fear is the sole thing holding it together now. But those who fear taking responsability for their future will deserve this EU...

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not convinced, you can rephrase any statement of 'the EU offers us this benefit' as 'we'll lose this if we leave the EU', but the two are meaningfully the same. Given that the option is between no-change and change, it's not surprising to see the no-change side phrasing things in the second way.

 

[Yeekim]

But one correction. Europe is just a piece of geography, the EU is the enemy of europeans, who are being very much screwed in all aspects (economic, social, diplomatic) by the insane policies enacted by the self-styled "european leaders", which they cannot change in their national elections unless they're willing to exit (or preferably, put an end to) the EU.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not convinced.
(Who are those "self-styled leaders/policymakers" you speak of? )

Europe is not just a piece of geography. It is a society that is growing in both complexity and size.
Growth in complexity is an unavoidable corollary of technological progress we can not halt, unless we decide becoming Amish - which I can't see happening.
Growth in size unavoidably means that each individual member of society has less say in deciding things. One can decry this as lack democracy, but no matter how perfectly you set up your democracy, you can't change this unfortunate mathematical fact.
Growth in size and complexity also mean that this society becomes more intertwined at an almost exponential rate. Our problems are getting increasingly common (shared), and increasingly require common solutions.

Allow me to bring a simplified analogy.

If there is a single house house in a middle of a forest, the inhabitants of that house can decide everything for themselves. But if the number, size and density of houses grows, the place eventually become a city with plethora of new problems to solve.

To imagine that each house can continue to function as a fully sovereign entity is a pipe dream. If a house refuses to take part in - and submit to - city-level decision making, those decisions either get made without its input, or - if enough other houses follow suit - won't get made or carried through at all. At which point there won't be a city, but simply a slum.

Obviously, not all decisions have to be taken on city level. But many need to be.

Full disclosure: I'm a public servant and a member of a number of working groups at both Commission and Council of EU. I've also actively taken part in bringing a case to ECJ on behalf of Estonia (against a particular EU Directive we felt violated principles of proportionality and subsidiarity). We lost.