Political Consequences of Britain's BREXIT Referendum, 2016

DJCMH · Post by **DJCMH** » 21 Feb 2016 12:14

So the British will get another vote (it voted in favor of staying in the EU in 1975) on membership in the EU.

In terms of long-range geopolitics, I think the voters of the UK have two eventual fates to choose from :

it can remain part of a 500+ million people economic and political grouping and use its position to limit the ability of the Germans and French to try and dominate the EU, and have the combined economic and geopolitical resources of Europe balance the geopolitical and economic power of the other major global powers

or it can become a 60+ million people "little Britain" (and likely "little England" since the Scots prob would move for independence if England votes to leave) trying to carve a position of influence in the world in face of the economic and geopolitical powers of a 320+ million USA, 1.2+ Billion China and India, over 100+ million Russia, the growing power of the new giants such as Brazil, Nigeria, Turkey and Indonesia, and a continental Europe of close to 500+ million dominated by the Germans (with French assistance).

The last time Britain was geopolitically isolated was 1940-1941, and had it not been for its direct control of the human and material resources of its Empire and growing USA economic and military support, would most likely have been defeated by Nazi Germany.

At best, without the Empire to fall back on as in 1940, a Britain outside the EU would have to hope and pray that the USA continues its support of Britain as a "junior partner" in the greater Anglophone world (kind of as it was during the Iraq war, with Blair playing backup to GW Bush). Otherwise, I fear Britain will find its path to continued political and economic influence in the world overwhelmed by larger powers.

I hate to say it, but a "Little Britain" is not really the optimal solution to securing Britain's position in the 21st century world. As much as the European Union project does result in a loss of some local control over various social, economic and geopolitical policies, it also provides Britain with a platform to help continue to shape the EUs evolution, reduces the dominance of Germany and France over the EU project, and provides the geopolitical and economic resources to successfully compete in a world of much larger economic and geopolitical actors.

In my opinion, Britain inside a 500+ million EU will be much more secure, economically and geopolitically, than a "Little Britain"/"Little England" either as the USA's "junior partner" or, potentially, all alone in the world.

Let the debate begin.....

gugusg · Post by **gugusg** » 21 Feb 2016 12:20

Well uk has always been borderline with european project. If they want to leave, then they have to but no more conditiond to stay inside euro

Brit-Col · Post by **Brit-Col** » 21 Feb 2016 19:38

Cameron hung tough and got the so-called "special status." So why wouldn't they stay in?

BC

22028 · Post by **22028** » 21 Feb 2016 19:46

What Cameron got, basically nothing.

I hope UK leaves, they never had been European..., living on an Island and prefer to live on an Island with walls surrounding them.

Since they joined, they always blackmailed the EU, wanted special conditions..., interfering in everything

(Note: "They" means the ordinary British while i am aware that there are plenty of pro-Europeans.

Brit-Col · Post by **Brit-Col** » 21 Feb 2016 19:57

Well... ok. Not being European I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I still think the Brits will conclude they are better off in, rather than out.

BC

22028 · Post by **22028** » 22 Feb 2016 01:06

Something to consider is that stamp purchases in UK (for EU-members) and purchased in EU countries (for British buyers)would become more expensive since they would be subject to taxation!

Somerset · Post by **Somerset** » 22 Feb 2016 01:18

I know the Scottish Nationalist Party is talking about leaving the UK if we vote to leave the EU. But their long term economic plans were based on oil at $100 a barrel. It is half that now, and looks set to stay low for a long time. Scotland cannot afford to leave the union.

Britcollector · Post by **Britcollector** » 22 Feb 2016 04:19

The above answers seem based on the EU remaining as it is: Single currency and a German-driven agenda for complete uniformity in everything from taxation to national economic goals to pensions to ______.

I do not think that will happen. The membership is too diverse and is unwilling to give up nationalist habits and pride and identity.

I believe the EC will suffer a major crisis or three that will force it to step back and become a strong economic alliance, but with separate currencies or currency groups.

GB could thrive in such an environment, still drink pints of beer, make their own laws, and enjoy life whether it meets German standards or not.

Until that happens, I think GB would be better out of EU

Atelli01 · Post by **Atelli01** » 22 Feb 2016 05:40

If UK citizens vote to leave, it will be because of only one factor, immigration. The average Brit either does not understand, or does not care about, the nuances of European law or finances. But all Brits understand that once an individual holds an EU passport, they can arrive here at will and immediately be treated as though they had lived here and paid tax here for many years.

This includes the millions arriving from North Africa, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan etc, the hundreds of millions already living in the EEC, plus the millions from Turkey and other states likely to join in the future. It's not about race, it's about numbers.

For a country that has a hugely complex and massively expensive infrastructure, particularly our National Health Service, the arrival of an uncertain and unlimited number of people makes it difficult to plan and impossible to finance.

All Brits understand this.

emason · Post by **emason** » 22 Feb 2016 05:47

I will vote to leave the European Union although I believe the result will be to stay in.

Although Cameron has got some of what he asked for, he wasn't asking for much in the first place - and that has been watered down as expected. Another problem is that what has been agreed has to be ratified by the European Parliament before it becomes legal, and can be (and probably will be) amended in the process, resulting in further dilution.

But the real bugbear is that these discussions will only take place AFTER the referendum, and then only if the referendum result is to stay in. Which means that the British public will not know what it is voting for or committing itself to!

The EU has a long history of 're-interpreting' the wording of agreements and I for one do not believe for an instant that they have any real intention of granting any substantial concessions to the UK. And that is why I will be voting to leave the EU!

emason · Post by **emason** » 22 Feb 2016 06:12

DJCMH wrote:So the British will get another vote (it voted in favor of staying in the EU in 1975) on membership in the EU.

Not so!

The 1975 referendum was to join the EEC (European Economic Community, or 'Common Market') which was purely a trading organisation with no political overtones - which I voted for. It was only later that it became a political union (the European Union) after a series of treaties beginning with Maastricht etc..

So the basis on which we joined in 1975 has changed out of all recognition and the British public was not consulted about any of it because the governments of the day knew what the result would be if they did.

hatter · Post by **hatter** » 22 Feb 2016 06:26

Interesting, the question here is 'how will the UK vote?'
not - 'how will you as a UK voter, choose to vote?'

non UK voters will have opinions, but not votes in this Referendum.

My head and heart point in opposite directions.
Head says 'IN'
Heart says 'OUT'

Boris Johnson has just lost the little confidence I ever had in him, it is clear his support for 'Out' is based on standing for election as the next leader of the Conservatives as the man who tried, but failed to get the UK out, appealling to the grass root - blue rinse brigade.

How will I vote on 23rd June ?

ask me on the 22nd. 8)

A Scottish friend and I took opposite sides in the Scottish referendum, but he said something highly relevant:
"This isn't about my generation, it's about the future generations and what's best for them"

Ianigsy · Post by **Ianigsy** » 22 Feb 2016 07:00

Cameron called this referendum in an attempt to silence the right of his own party and he's putting the country's neck on the line in order to do it, which strikes me as grossly irresponsible.

As things stand I intend to vote to stay in- I value the external guarantee of workers' rights (maximum 48 hour working week, minimum 25 day holiday entitlement) and the freedom of movement has brought me a number of friends and colleagues that I wouldn't otherwise have. Because the terms on which we would leave the EU would be subject to two years of negotiation, nobody can say exactly what they would be- so we could vote to leave and then end up with a pig in a poke. I think a similar thing happened in the Australian referendum on the monarchy- from speaking to some Aussies in Perth ten years ago, one of the failings of the republic campaign was that they left the constitutional model to be decided after the vote.

If something like NAFTA had existed in the 1960s when we started negotiations to enter the EEC, that might had been a better fit for us, especially when we still had some Caribbean colonies- we could have had a trading bloc based on the English-speaking countries of the North Atlantic. I think my perspective has been changed by travelling in Eastern Europe in the last seven years or so and seeing places like Vilnius, which I wouldn't have been able to see in my teens when it was still in the USSR.

60022Mallard · Post by **60022Mallard** » 22 Feb 2016 07:36

For those who want to stay in please tell me how I can vote to remove from office those who make the rules and regulations which flow out of the EU.

Our American friends vote for a President and Congress, which if the public do not like what they do, they can be voted out.

No matter how I vote in any election in the U.K. I cannot remove the hierarchy of the EU.

There is an enormous democratic deficit.

History shows that all empires from the Roman to the USSR made up of disparate peoples eventually split apart. The EU will be no different. Indeed the great unifying idea of the Euro is actually creating the tensions to hasten its demise, particularly as German productivity is now undermining the French economy too and France heads towards joining the Club Med status countries.

Better to leave them to it.

phrag99 · Post by **phrag99** » 22 Feb 2016 08:40

I guess I shall be voting to stay in, but I've had my faith shaken in recent days. I just do not see that Cameron's recent negotiations will have any material bearing on our status and he has failed to obtain the objectives that were in his party's manifesto, last election.

Half of my family live in the EU - some on a farm in Portugal, some in Berlin, so we're quite an integrated European family. I don't want any impediment to future generations becoming more broadly European.

Incidentally, the non-Brits who have contributed to this thread are generally ignorant of what the average Brit thinks. Think carefully before you submit further postings that purport to know what the British population believe.

Also, are you just glad you don't have to chose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Now there's one election I'm pleased not to participate in.

Ianigsy · Post by **Ianigsy** » 22 Feb 2016 09:16

60022Mallard wrote:For those who want to stay in please tell me how I can vote to remove from office those who make the rules and regulations which flow out of the EU.

Our American friends vote for a President and Congress, which if the public do not like what they do, they can be voted out.

No matter how I vote in any election in the U.K. I cannot remove the hierarchy of the EU.

There is an enormous democratic deficit.

History shows that all empires from the Roman to the USSR made up of disparate peoples eventually split apart. The EU will be no different. Indeed the great unifying idea of the Euro is actually creating the tensions to hasten its demise, particularly as German productivity is now undermining the French economy too and France heads towards joining the Club Med status countries.

Better to leave them to it.

I have French friends who work in this country precisely because the job market in France is stagnant and has been for the best part of a decade- they're engineers, computer programmers and scientists, and those sectors are more dynamic in the English-speaking world.

As regards the democratic deficit, I think the elephant in the room is that the EU doesn't trust its citizens not to vote on nationalistic lines, hence all the rotating presidencies. I would guess that in particular in the decades after the Second World War there was a fear of Germany (and in some quarters there's probably still a fear of 90 million German speakers in the middle of the continent), plus there's the issue of mapping political parties across from a national to European level which the European Parliament does to an extent with loose groupings. And at any given time half the countries will have left leaning governments and half will be looking right- compare the leadership of Britain and France now with ten years ago!

Post by **GlenStephens** » 22 Feb 2016 10:54

Ianigsy wrote: Because the terms on which we would leave the EU would be subject to two years of negotiation, nobody can say exactly what they would be- so we could vote to leave and then end up with a pig in a poke.

I think a similar thing happened in the Australian referendum on the monarchy - from speaking to some Aussies in Perth ten years ago, one of the failings of the republic campaign was that they left the constitutional model to be decided after the vote.

Can someone please post what the actual WORING is that Brits are asked to vote on?

The devil is in the detail. Always.

If British voters were asked

"Are you in favour of leaving the EU - YES/NO"

The result of that will be meaningful. Whatever the vote is.

Had Australians been asked -

"Are you in favour of becoming a Republic - YES/NO"

It would have got way more than 50% in my view. Have a later referendum THEN listing 2 or 3 possible ways of ELECTING that new President after discussing the options.

Our Arch Royalist PM at the time John Howard, wanted nothing to do with any Republic, so worded the referendum in such a complex and convoluted fashion it was never going to be approved - far too much micro arguing over fine detail ensured before any vote took place.

We were never given the option of voting to a model to appoint our President by a popular vote each 4 years, as occurs in most other Republics like the USA - politicians would do it, and that is never wise to approve. That was our only choice we were asked to vote on!

Even so the first question lost only 45%/55%.

Australia Republic question

Electors were asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Preamble question

Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.

The preamble would then have read

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.

We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:

proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;

upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;

honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;

mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;

supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;

and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

Results

Section 128 of the Australian Constitution requires a "double majority" to pass a constitutional amendment—a majority of states (four or more), and a majority of all the electors voting. Voters in the territories only counted towards the second of those majorities.

11,785,000 votes were cast, representing a voter turnout of 95.10%. Of these, approximately 100,000 (0.9%) were informal.

RESULT .. nothing changed.

The leader of the Republican Movement, Malcom Turnbull is NOW our Prime Minister, and oddly and sadly has no stomach to raise this again.

Be interesting to see where Brits vote on this EU model and I'd like to see the WORDING on which they vote.

Atelli01 · Post by **Atelli01** » 22 Feb 2016 18:08

As long as it does not change again, the actual wording will be as follows;

******************************************

The Electoral Commission has today given its statutory advice to Parliament on the proposed referendum question in the European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, which has its next parliamentary stage (Report) on 7 September.

The question currently in the Bill and that was tested by the Commission was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”

The responses would be ‘Yes’ / ‘No’

Following its assessment process, the Commission has recommended that the question should be amended to:

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

The responses would be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ / ‘Leave the European Union’.

*************************************

Nice and clear, about the only aspect that is. What is missing, and shows no sign on being proposed, is a setting out of the facts of the case, both for and against. For the average Brit, this means that he or she can only vote with their heart, not their head. The EU is geared massively towards big business, the individual has little idea of its day to day workings.

60022Mallard · Post by **60022Mallard** » 22 Feb 2016 19:01

Ianigsy wrote:

As regards the democratic deficit, I think the elephant in the room is that the EU doesn't trust its citizens not to vote on nationalistic lines, hence all the rotating presidencies.

What rotating presidencies?

Do you mean commissioners?

Those in the U.K. will remember that Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson were parachuted in as commissioners after being failed politicians in the U.K.

They only left, on their non-taxed rather generous pension, after their time was up. There was no way that I as a citizen could remove them, or any other leader or commissioner. It is completely jobs for the boys who believe in the "project". No UKIP, Front Nationale or AFD politician is ever likely to be offered a job, are they?

You are of course right that we cannot be trusted to vote on other than nationalistic lines, you only have to look at the Eurovision Song Contest for confirmation. So we should just shut up and do as we are told by those who know best.

But these minor things do not really matter if by being a member of the EU we can rove around without passport checks at borders.

Whoops! Even that looks to be coming to an end thanks to Mrs Merkel and her "Everybody in" policy.

As you say English is becoming the lingua franca, and a goodly part of the "Everybody in" will already speak English, so I wonder where they will want to move on to when they have received their EU "right to roam"?

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 22 Feb 2016 20:43

22028 wrote:Something to consider is that stamp purchases in UK (for EU-members) and purchased in EU countries (for British buyers)would become more expensive since they would be subject to taxation!

Stamp purchases for within the EU are already subject to Value Added Tax
- if the seller is a postal administration
- if the seller is a dealer registered for Value Added Tax.

Currently sales to end-users/collectors outside the EU are not subject to Value Added Tax. Therefore if the UK were to leave the EU, sales to collectors in the EU would become free of UK VAT, and purchases by UK collectors from EU sellers would become from of VAT of the sending country. (The Single Market doesn't count these as imports and exports, merely as intra-zone transfers.)

However, purchases by EU buyers from the UK, and UK buyers from the EU would then become subject to import duty and national VAT at the appropriate rates, just as imports from the USA and Australia are. These would then be subject to bi-lateral or international (GATT) agreements.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 22 Feb 2016 20:54

Atelli01 wrote:If UK citizens vote to leave, it will be because of only one factor, immigration. The average Brit either does not understand, or does not care about, the nuances of European law or finances. But all Brits understand that once an individual holds an EU passport, they can arrive here at will and immediately be treated as though they had lived here and paid tax here for many years.

This includes the millions arriving from North Africa, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan etc, the hundreds of millions already living in the EEC, plus the millions from Turkey and other states likely to join in the future. It's not about race, it's about numbers.

For a country that has a hugely complex and massively expensive infrastructure, particularly our National Health Service, the arrival of an uncertain and unlimited number of people makes it difficult to plan and impossible to finance.

All Brits understand this.

I agree with the start of your point: the whole emphasis has unfortunately been on immigration, and that is not on what we should base our decision. We need to be told (by both sides) what they think the other benefits/disadvantages will be for leaving or staying: how many jobs will be lost/saved/gained etc.

One point I don't understand is the millions arriving from North Africa, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan . These have no right of residence in the UK (unless the [French] North Africans have the right of residence in France). Clouding arguments with innacuracies doesn't help.

I don't honestly believe that most come here for our national health service and our social benefits. I think most from the countries you mention will find it easier to work and live here because they find it easier to speak English than Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Hungarian, Bulgarian etc., and there are more opportunities here.

The agricultural workers in the fields of Lincolnshire and west Norfolk are from eastern Europe and they earn enough to send money home. Why do they get jobs here? Because British people will not do the work.

Ever since expectations were raised that all our youth should not only have the opportunity (if academically inclined) to go to university, but should be actively encouraged to strive for university even if they were not academically inclined but were better suited to a trade, too many young people have felt they have had the right not to get their hands dirty.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 22 Feb 2016 20:58

Ianigsy wrote:If something like NAFTA had existed in the 1960s when we started negotiations to enter the EEC, that might had been a better fit for us, especially when we still had some Caribbean colonies- we could have had a trading bloc based on the English-speaking countries of the North Atlantic.

Although NAFTA (North America, ie USA, Canada, Mexico) didn't exist, EFTA did, and there were trade agreements with Commonwealth countries. Our agreements with Europe upset some, like the New Zealanders, as it affected our imports from those countries.

Atelli01 · Post by **Atelli01** » 22 Feb 2016 21:57

Ian, the point I am making is that the new arrivals will largely apply for asylum, often without disclosing their country of origin. Given that Europe is not noted for repatriating people once they have set foot here, a good percentage of them will end up with an EU passport, and then they can go anywhere. The U.K. is currently enjoying relative economic health, so they are likely to come here.

I do not believe that they come to the UK BECAUSE of health and social benefits, but the fact remains that they CAN make use of them, and this makes planning hard and puts a strain on financing the social infrastructure. They need to be housed, their children need schools, their older relatives need care and pensions.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 23 Feb 2016 02:03

Atelli01 wrote:Ian, the point I am making is that the new arrivals will largely apply for asylum, often without disclosing their country of origin. Given that Europe is not noted for repatriating people once they have set foot here, a good percentage of them will end up with an EU passport, and then they can go anywhere. The U.K. is currently enjoying relative economic health, so they are likely to come here.

I do not believe that they come to the UK BECAUSE of health and social benefits, but the fact remains that they CAN make use of them, and this makes planning hard and puts a strain on financing the social infrastructure. They need to be housed, their children need schools, their older relatives need care and pensions.

Agreed. This is why the government is now putting money into housing refugees direct from Syria, rather than those creeping through the tunnel.

Atelli01 · Post by **Atelli01** » 23 Feb 2016 03:35

Ian, sorry to be boring, but I must respond to you again.

The (potentially huge) group of people I am concerned about are those that arrive in Europe, other than the UK, and apply for asylum / refugee status/ nationality or whatever is available to them.

They eventually receive an EU passport which entitles them to come to the UK without the need to 'creep through the tunnel'. While we are members of the EEC, we are totally powerless to refuse entry to this group.

The illegals that are attempting to crash the tunnel are already being handled under existing rules.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 23 Feb 2016 05:35

No problem. I see your point entirely.

Maybe the EU should agree a system whereby those granted political asylum should stay in the country where that is granted, at least for some time.

Brit-Col · Post by **Brit-Col** » 24 Feb 2016 22:03

phrag99 wrote:Incidentally, the non-Brits who have contributed to this thread are generally ignorant of what the average Brit thinks. Think carefully before you submit further postings that purport to know what the British population believe.

It's a discussion board with world-wide membership and we all can say whatever we like so long as it is respectful and within the rules.

Besides, for example, the "When will Americans tighten up on guns" and "Donald Trump" and many other threads would be downright boring if only Americans were allowed to comment in them.

It is the diversity of perspectives and opinions that makes for lively discussion, even though some of those will be ill-informed or clearly prejudiced.

BC

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 24 Feb 2016 22:23

Brit-Col wrote:
phrag99 wrote:Incidentally, the non-Brits who have contributed to this thread are generally ignorant of what the average Brit thinks. Think carefully before you submit further postings that purport to know what the British population believe.
It's a discussion board with world-wide membership and we all can say whatever we like so long as it is respectful and within the rules.
---8<------
It is the diversity of perspectives and opinions that makes for lively discussion, even though some of those will be ill-informed or clearly prejudiced.

BC

I think it was a valid point. Anybody, anywhere, can write "I think" or "I believe" or "I see from the British media that...". But writing, "the British people don't care about membership of the EU" is as wrong as writing "the people of America all want to have a private arsenal in their basement".

And when it comes to being ill-informed on the EU, many of the British are up there with everybody else, [mis-]guided by the British popular press. Writing that "all immigrants are here illegally and are claiming benefits" is just plain wrong.

For this referendum to produce a valid result, the voting public (I changed that from British because some citizens in Gibraltar, Ireland, and Malta may vote), need to be much better informed about all aspects, and the likely impact of a decision one way or another. Sadly I don't think we will be.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 24 Feb 2016 22:25

60022Mallard wrote:What rotating presidencies?

I don't think anybody answered this.

A rotating presidency

The presidency of the Council rotates among the EU member states every 6 months. During this 6-month period, the presidency chairs meetings at every level in the Council, helping to ensure the continuity of the EU's work in the Council.

Post by **gavin-h** » 24 Feb 2016 23:08

norvic wrote:For this referendum to produce a valid result, the voting public (I changed that from British because some citizens in Gibraltar, Ireland, and Malta may vote), need to be much better informed about all aspects, and the likely impact of a decision one way or another.

This is the key point.

If the vote was TODAY, I would vote to leave because I am not happy with the level of interference from Europe and I don't think we get "value for money" from our investment in the EU.

BUT given that there are almost four months until the vote, in that time I would like to hear from both sides IN DETAIL what their plans are post-referendum before committing to one side or the other.

It is not enough simply to say "We will be [better off / worse off] if we leave". We need to know the detail of the plans - for example, if we leave, do we strengthen our economic ties with the Commonwealth, with China, with the USA and so on? If we stay, do we have a guarantee that Mr Cameron's "hard-won concessions" will be implemented? How will our policy on immigration be changed if we leave? And many more besides.

For those reasons I think it is too early to answer the poll on this thread.

Hey - this is an unaccustomed position for me: sitting on the fence!!!

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 25 Feb 2016 09:35

gavin-h wrote:Hey - this is an unaccustomed position for me: sitting on the fence!!!

Well shove over, there needs to be room for a lot of us !

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 25 Feb 2016 09:47

norvic wrote:
gavin-h wrote:Hey - this is an unaccustomed position for me: sitting on the fence!!!
Well shove over, there needs to be room for a lot of us !

Out of interest, is voting on these things compulsory in the UK?

Here it is (not just for Federal, but for State Government and also local council elections for gawdsakes!) and a pretty decent fine (a few $100 as I recall) arrives pretty fast if you do not.

There are arguments on both sides as to whether this gives you better of worse Government! In the USA I do not believes it is compulsory to vote on any level? But no idea what occurs in UK, and Europe generally, in such matters.

Britcollector · Post by **Britcollector** » 25 Feb 2016 10:00

USA: Not compulsory at any level.

You are right about the fine notice arriving quickly in Australia. When we lived there, it took about 10 days. I would send the note back in the envelope provided, with the note "US Citizen, not allowed to vote". Once, a guy came out to check.

FairyFoot · Post by **FairyFoot** » 25 Feb 2016 11:10

Global Administrator wrote:
norvic wrote:
gavin-h wrote:Hey - this is an unaccustomed position for me: sitting on the fence!!!
Well shove over, there needs to be room for a lot of us !
Out of interest, is voting on these things compulsory in the UK?

Here it is (not just for Federal, but for State Government and also local council elections for gawdsakes!) and a pretty decent fine (a few $100 as I recall) arrives pretty fast if you do not.

There are arguments on both sides as to whether this gives you better of worse Government! In the USA I do not believes it is compulsory to vote on any level? But no idea what occurs in UK, and Europe generally, in such matters.

I would like it to be compulsory in the UK, but... at the moment, if you don't like any of the choices on the ballot paper, many just spoil them. I wonder if there could be a box to abstain if you don't like any of the choices on offer.

Post by **gavin-h** » 25 Feb 2016 20:12

FairyFoot wrote:I would like it to be compulsory in the UK, but... at the moment, if you don't like any of the choices on the ballot paper, many just spoil them. I wonder if there could be a box to abstain if you don't like any of the choices on offer.

That's my position exactly - a "None of the above" option and maybe also a "Don't know/don't care" option would allow us to tell the politicians exactly what we think of them. But they'd never allow that, would they?

How does compulsory voting work in Oz? Do they have those options or do they simply turn up and place an unmarked ballot paper in the box if they don't like any candidate?

lesbootman · Post by **lesbootman** » 25 Feb 2016 22:55

The referendum is a bit of a joke. We Britons will be going to the polls in June and the way things are looking we will be voting "blind". We aren't really being made aware of the consequences of either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote; at least partially because nobody has much of a clue about what is going to happen if the UK votes to leave ... and the picture if we vote to stay in is not much clearer.

The international community seem to think that the UK is going to suffer either way, going by the way the value of the pound is plummeting on the foreign exchanges at the moment.

The problem is that very few people like the current situation, not even the government.

Personally I think the vote may be too close to call but my gut feeling is that the UK populace may well vote to leave the EU. I would probably vote to stay in the EU .... but only marginally. None of the arguments I've heard are particularly convincing.

I think that one of the primary reasons the Conservatives won the last election was the promise of this referendum. The fact that Boris Johnson might be said to have staked his political career on us voting to leave suggests that is the way he thinks the vote will go.

I imagine more people are open to being swayed at the last minute too. The OUT campaigners seem to have more convincing orators than the IN campaigners to do the swaying.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 26 Feb 2016 01:18

lesbootman wrote:The OUT campaigners seem to have more convincing orators than the IN campaigners to do the swaying.

And one of the biggest influences may be that Cameron wants to stay in. Given the general dislike of him and his party's policies in so many areas, that may be an effect that produced the wrong result.

lesbootman · Post by **lesbootman** » 26 Feb 2016 02:38

norvic wrote:
lesbootman wrote:The OUT campaigners seem to have more convincing orators than the IN campaigners to do the swaying.
And one of the biggest influences may be that Cameron wants to stay in. Given the general dislike of him and his party's policies in so many areas, that may be an effect that produced the wrong result.

Or at least David Cameron says he wants to stay in the EU. He's not giving me the impression that he is totally convinced!

FairyFoot · Post by **FairyFoot** » 26 Feb 2016 04:40

I read today in the paper that charities could lose a quarter of a billion pounds a year in EU grants if the UK leaves the EU. Save the Children would lose 5% of its income (I chose to mention this because I notice one of the pictures to be issued on a stamp next month is of Eglantyne Jebb © with kind permission of Save the Children). Oxfam could lose more..

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 26 Feb 2016 07:09

FairyFoot wrote:I read today in the paper that charities could lose a quarter of a billion pounds a year in EU grants if the UK leaves the EU. Save the Children would lose 5% of its income (I chose to mention this because I notice one of the pictures to be issued on a stamp next month is of Eglantyne Jebb © with kind permission of Save the Children). Oxfam could lose more..

Did 'the paper' (which one?) say why this would happen? This is precisely the sort of imprecise information that we are being fed by the press and repeating, but without anything to back it up it is difficult to know whether to believe it.

FairyFoot · Post by **FairyFoot** » 26 Feb 2016 08:02

It is in the i - they looked at the grants given in 2014 by the EU, mentioned Oxfam, Save the Children, World Vision, the British Museum and others. Caroline Lucas mentioned "a huge number of charities in Britain benefit every year from much-needed funding from the EU........."

fromdownunder · Post by **fromdownunder** » 26 Feb 2016 09:51

gavin-h wrote:How does compulsory voting work in Oz? Do they have those options or do they simply turn up and place an unmarked ballot paper in the box if they don't like any candidate?

Pretty much this. It is not compulsory voting, it is compulsory turning up and getting your name ticked off the list.

You then get a ballot paper, go into a private booth, and if you want to write a chicken soup recipe on it instead of numbering the boxes, you can.

Norm

FairyFoot · Post by **FairyFoot** » 03 Mar 2016 20:27

Was half-awake this morning when a person for the Exit campaign was on. The interviewer mentioned a stay campaigner saying wages would rise if the UK left the EU. The Exit campaigner said that was scaremongering... Does that mean he is wants workers to have less money/lower wages?

lesbootman · Post by **lesbootman** » 03 Mar 2016 22:29

FairyFoot wrote:Was half-awake this morning when a person for the Exit campaign was on. The interviewer mentioned a stay campaigner saying wages would rise if the UK left the EU. The Exit campaigner said that was scaremongering... Does that mean he is wants workers to have less money/lower wages?

Nope, that sounds about right. Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

It could be that wages would rise if the UK left the EU but when viewed in conjunction with a collapse of the currency people would be worse off.

I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, just that it is one possibility.

It is all to easy for politicians to spout out their rhetoric - I wonder if any of them are sufficiently confident that what they are forecasting will come true to place a bet to the value of their total net worth on just that?

I suppose the worrying thing is that they're happier to use other people's total net worth as their stake even though they know deep down that they are betting "blind".

FairyFoot · Post by **FairyFoot** » 06 Mar 2016 00:42

lesbootman wrote:
FairyFoot wrote:Was half-awake this morning when a person for the Exit campaign was on. The interviewer mentioned a stay campaigner saying wages would rise if the UK left the EU. The Exit campaigner said that was scaremongering... Does that mean he is wants workers to have less money/lower wages?
Nope, that sounds about right. Nobody knows what the consequences will be.

It could be that wages would rise if the UK left the EU but when viewed in conjunction with a collapse of the currency people would be worse off.

I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, just that it is one possibility.

It is all to easy for politicians to spout out their rhetoric - I wonder if any of them are sufficiently confident that what they are forecasting will come true to place a bet to the value of their total net worth on just that?

I suppose the worrying thing is that they're happier to use other people's total net worth as their stake even though they know deep down that they are betting "blind".

The way my mind worked first thing in the morning, half asleep - I was thinking the Brexit person wanted the polar opposite of "wages rising" and translated this into him wanting workers to have less money.

Ianigsy · Post by **Ianigsy** » 07 Mar 2016 06:11

FairyFoot wrote:Was half-awake this morning when a person for the Exit campaign was on. The interviewer mentioned a stay campaigner saying wages would rise if the UK left the EU. The Exit campaigner said that was scaremongering... Does that mean he is wants workers to have less money/lower wages?

If Brexit means restricting the supply of European migrants prepared to work for minimum wage or on zero hours contracts, then you would have a more competitive job market and wage expectations would have to rise.

The trouble is that small businesses may not be able to manage their wage costs accordingly and either scale back any growth plans or cease to trade- living in the Yorkshire Dales, where the labour pool is fairly small to begin with.

I can think of one hotel in particular which uses a lot of Eastern European staff who are prepared to live in because there just aren't enough people of working age in the area to do those kind of cleaning and waiting jobs.

The public sector in Britain has also been subject to very stringent pay control since 2010 (many public sector employees can consider themselves lucky to have had inflationary pay rises year on year) so there's the potential for either higher wages in the private sector drawing people away from the public services, or for higher wage costs to be passed on to the public in higher taxation.

Britcollector · Post by **Britcollector** » 07 Mar 2016 07:11

Most of what I read from both sides seems to be doomsday predictions to scare people. No one really knows what will happen IMO.

I think Boris is right on that subject.

hatter · Post by **hatter** » 21 Mar 2016 01:24

OK, who believes that Ian Duncan Smith's resignation is about Work and pensions plans from the Budget? and who believes it is about the Referendum campaign?

a Clue: as a Cabinet minister he attended the Cabinet meeting which approved the budget proposals on Wednesday morning, and as Minister for Work and Pensions those were his proposals (or at least his team's proposals in his name)

Post by **gavin-h** » 21 Mar 2016 03:56

We'll probably never know for sure, but it certainly seems a bit sus...

While we're on the "Who believes...?" tack:

Who believes that the Conservative strategists know that the referendum campaign will be damaging to the party and hence decided to bring the referendum date forward as far as possible to take advantage of the fact that Labour are also in chaos. After all, if they'd waited until Labour dump the liability Corbyn in the autumn, it'll be more damaging still.

But getting back to the point, I said a month ago:

gavin-h wrote:...I would like to hear from both sides IN DETAIL what their plans are post-referendum before committing to one side or the other.

It is not enough simply to say "We will be [better off / worse off] if we leave". We need to know the detail of the plans...

For those reasons I think it is too early to answer the poll on this thread.

A quarter of the way to the poll, and apart from posturing and name-calling on both sides (and the revelation that Chukka Umunna seems to have found something he CAN do without the attention being too much for him!) nothing has changed.

We STILL don't have any details, and really it is the "Out" campaign that needs to tell us how they will manage the country outside the EU.

hatter · Post by **hatter** » 21 Mar 2016 04:22

Who believes that the Conservative strategists know that the referendum campaign will be damaging to the party and hence decided to bring the referendum date forward as far as possible to take advantage of the fact that Labour are also in chaos.

yes, very likely, but to be fair them (

) a long referendum campaign with great uncertainty on the result is not good news for the economy. Business hates uncertainty! and it tends to show in the currency exchange rates

We may be viewing it as a Never-endum by June.

We STILL don't have any details, and really it is the "Out" campaign that needs to tell us how they will manage the country outside the EU.

TRUE