Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[EnglishEdward]

Also, this is more for Edward than anyone else, but you can't claim that this is not about xenophobia when Boris Johnson and Michael Gove claim there is no trust in immigration policy so migrants must be required to speak English and so forth.

I cannot be bothered to look up what they said, but will take your word on it.

I am not impressed with Boris Johnson or Michael Gove. I believe that the
electoral commission and the BBC chose to recognise such characters because
they can be relied upon to amuse by putting their foot in their mouths.

Britain is an over crowded island, and trying to make for instance a 75 year
old refugee from Syria speak English does not reduce over crowding.

It is quite astonishing noticing the number of valid arguments that they are not
making for leaving, almost to a point where one might suspect that they have
been put up as stalking horses to lead the exit campaign so that it will fail.

I am married to a former Filipino (now naturalised British), my elder brother is
married to a black lady born in Africa; so it is not xenophobia/racism on my part.


I could equally well claim that the European project is about xenophobia or racism
to non Europeans. The pro EU enthusiasts would probably find that line offensive,
well please understand this: most Leavers find the xenophobic label an insult in itself.

 

[HAND]

Well, if he wants to deal with a strengthened EU… oh wait, he's not the president of the US.

I know Trump is not US President. I was playing along with really's joke.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Donald Trump will be visiting the UK the day after the vote for the opening of his golf course in Scotland.

It could be an opportunity to jump start negotiations on a new trade deal.

Is that a mischievous post?

Donald Trump won't be elected President (by then), and any such conversation
would be regarded as the bloody Brits unhelpfully meddling in US politics.

In case you have not worked it out, the reason that Barack Obama
is cool on relations with the UK is that by joining in on invading Iraq
Tony Blair meddled in US politics supporting the republican neo-cons.


I can only trust that any British hosts will instead loudly expound about
the opportunities for golf developments in the Republic of Ireland.

 

[Arakhor]

I am not impressed with Boris Johnson or Michael Gove. I believe that the electoral commission and the BBC chose to recognise such characters because they can be relied upon to amuse by putting their foot in their mouths.

What on earth makes you think that the BBC was in charge of determining the official party of Vote Leave??

 

[Agent327]

A neutral "statement" would have been to keep quiet. Her subtext was definitely "Anyone given to thinking will vote to stay in the UK", imo.

Subtext being what she didn't actually say. At any rate, public statements by the monarch can only represent official views. (A 'neutral' statement could only be to the effect of: 'there's pros and contras to a Brexit' - which is rather redundant.)

Yes, when one side's pitch is based on caution, and calling the other position 'a gamble' and 'a risk we cannot afford to take', you might well interpret that as a subtle hint. Very subtle, mind.

That would be a recent change in position then, as both pro and contra camps have been expounding the disastrousness of the opponents' position virtually during the entire campaign.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not the same thing, though. The Leave side are saying that being in the EU is bad and that it is going to get worse, but they're not talking in terms of risk - to them, the problems with the EU are certain and obvious. It's the Remain side that has used the language of gambling and risk. To pick a few off the internet:

The NFU: Leaving the EU is a risk we cannot afford to take

Lord Myners, former Treasury minister: Every major independent economic institution, from the Bank of England to the IMF, has made it clear that leaving the EU would damage the UK economy. This is yet more evidence that leaving is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Caroline Lucas: Britain is fairer, safer and greener in Europe. Following Vote Leave’s dangerous and divisive policies would be a risk we cannot afford to take.

The Panel of Dragons' Den': Leaving the EU constitutes a serious risk - to the British economy as a whole and to millions of businesses, including start-ups, small firms and larger corporations.

To use an analogy, it would be a little bit like a former president saying something about how he wanted America to be great. Everyone wants America to be great, but it's difficult not to pick up the echo of Trump in that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Leaving a hole in the ground just as the plateau starts to flood is a risk you cannot afford to take. Inside: no flooding currently. Stay in and hope natural laws will change.

 

[Borachio]

Subtext being what she didn't actually say.

Sure. But then why say anything at all?

And, now I come to think of it, just how patronizing was it of her to suggest that people think before they vote?

I think the answer is "very". The implication being that people don't tend to think before voting.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What on earth makes you think that the BBC was in charge of determining the official party of Vote Leave??

I don't think that at all.

However the BBC chooses who it reports on and thereby gives credence to individuals.

 

[Kyriakos]

Any message by Lord Prescott on the vote?

 

[Borachio]

Isn't there some obligation (i.e. not just a free choice) on the BBC to report fairly, Mr Edward?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Flying Pig and others:


The people at the top of the organisation whether it is the CBI, the Green party,
the institute of this or that have merely by that fact that they being at the top done well,
been personally successful, from 40 years UK submission to the EEC, EC, EU etc.

They are by definition, not typical and have a biased view in favour of the status quo.
Furthermore once they are at the top, change can only threaten their position.

It really is a matter of "I'm alright jack" and crushing any challenge to their position.

So appeals to authority do not impress me.

 

[Flying Pig]

Right, but my post was not an appeal to their authority - I was pointing out that arguments about risk and caution cluster on one side. Although I can't help but think it significant when David Cameron, the TUC, the Green Party and the CBI all agree on something. You have to go a long way down the conspiracy rabbit-hole to explain that away.

 

[Arakhor]

Have I Got News For You showed the clip where Boris Johnson was confronted on camera about the £350m a week claim and was told to admit that it simply wasn't true. Unfortunately, all Boris could do was disagree in that meandering way of his and refused to engage with the question.

Whilst you might not be racist etc., Edward, why are Vote Leave focussing heavily on immigration now? Is it because they think it will be a vote-winner or is it a less wholesome reason? How will they handle illegal immigration? People risking their lives to walk 26 miles down the Channel Tunnel all night are not going to be put off by Eurosceptics piously claiming that border security is obtainable if only we leave the EU.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, Edward, please notice that we aren't accusing you in the singular of beiugn anything, but -as I posted some pages ago- a significant number of the Leave campaign aren't focusing on economic arguments (perhaps because neither Farage nor Johnson has much of a grasp on even the basics) but on ‘keep dem immigrints out’.

 

[Borachio]

Is it because they think it will be a vote-winner

Exactly this.

 

[Arakhor]

The joke with economics predictions is that you can collect 40 economists together in a room and have 50 different opinions, but I'd still rather trust an economist over a politician, especially if said politician is simply doing their best ostrich impression, no matter what is said.

 

[Ajidica]

The joke with economics predictions is that you can collect 40 economists together in a room and have 50 different opinions, but I'd still rather trust an economist over a politician, especially if said politician is simply doing their best ostrich impression, no matter what is said.

Reminds me of an old Clarke and Dawe segment.
"As an economist I can't be held accountable for what I say."
"Why is that?"
"Anything I say can be true given the proper assumptions."

 

[Agent327]

Sure. But then why say anything at all?

And, now I come to think of it, just how patronizing was it of her to suggest that people think before they vote?

I think the answer is "very". The implication being that people don't tend to think before voting.

Given the wild swings left or right that happen at elections, I'm not sure what other analysis you might give of people's voting process. The whole voting process has become a sort of secular ritual. To illustrate one only need look at the recent pro and contra Brexit campaign: none of the protagonists advocated a rational decision making process. Pro Brexiteers paint the wonders that will happen if only the UK will leave the EU, while anti Brexiteers paint a picture of doom when this would happen. Neither is based on any rational grounds, and often on very shaky assumptions.

It is in this context that I find a call for 'thinking before voting' not just neutral, but quite refreshing. You may find that patronizing, but that would be in complete ignorance of the campaign so far then, which has treated all British voters as immature infants with no mental capacities whatsoever.

 

[Takhisis]

That's because most of the proponents are immature and of limited mental capacities. The plan that is being actually touted around is ‘keep dem Polish and Mooslims and Chinamen outta here’ and there's not much you can do except descend into the broken record of ‘multiculturalism’. Cameron simply seems to be waiting for time to run out, as he did in 2014. And he might be fumbling it this time.

I generally don't like much of what the EU has turned out to be (especially when compared to how it promised and had the possibility to be) but unless the UK enshrines in law -a superior law, or even better, a constitution- a lot of the labour, social and other protections that are EU regulations or have been indirect consequences of EU membership, pulling out means those regulations are no longer in effect and the parliamentary dictatorhip means that they can do whatever they like. It would be, actually, several steps backwards in that respect.

Have there been any recent sightings of Nick Clegg?