Support NeoGAF

[Beefy]

Big banks and scary companies like the Open University?

Again all I said was big companies and banks will always look out for themselves. I didn't not say every report etc was hyperball. Of course leaving the EU will have it's problems. I am voting to remain as the leave haven't answered a thing.

 

[phisheep]

I'm guessing that the polls, as well excluding Northern Ireland, also don't include the 1.2m UK expats living in the EU - who I guess will vote overwhelmingly to Remain.

 

[danowat]

Another day another scare story, this time the IFS saying two more years of austerity should we pull out.

Shame the IFS have been funded by the EU, as that just gives Brexiters an excuse to call bias.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I chucked them out this morning, but thanks to recycling they aren't covered in baked beans or anything. I'll see if I can root them out. There's one particularly bad one that is worth posting for the lulz alone (I think it is purely a local one).

Thanks. No worries if you can't, I'm just surprised by how few I've seen around here. I guess polling or whatever has shown leave canvassing isn't worth it or maybe there just aren't any local leavers to do it.

 

[Dougald]

It's a shame neither side took after yes Scotland, who I felt ran quite a positive campaign. It would be nice to see some stories that portray either option in a light other than 'financial ruin' and 'millions of scary foreigners'

 

[Hasney]

Thanks. No worries if you can't, I'm just surprised by how few I've seen around here. I guess polling or whatever has shown leave canvassing isn't worth it or maybe there just aren't any local leavers to do it.

Same here. All I've seen is a couple of signs saying "in" in peoples windows and the leaflet everyone got.

 

[cabot]

It's a shame neither side took after yes Scotland, who I felt ran quite a positive campaign. It would be nice to see some stories that portray either option in a light other than 'financial ruin' and 'millions of scary foreigners'

Yes campaign was mostly good but they never adequately answered the economic question.

They switched between 'but the oil!' and 'it's all in our white paper'.

Two really crap answers for a major issue.

 

[jelly]

I'm guessing that the polls, as well excluding Northern Ireland, also don't include the 1.2m UK expats living in the EU - who I guess will vote overwhelmingly to Remain.

Depends if those expats have lived outside the UK for less than 15 years because they can't vote otherwise.

 

[kavanf1]

It's a shame neither side took after yes Scotland, who I felt ran quite a positive campaign. It would be nice to see some stories that portray either option in a light other than 'financial ruin' and 'millions of scary foreigners'

The Scottish yes campaign was run on positivity and that's about it. There was no substance to the campaign at all, even the white paper was torn apart when analysed. With decisions of this magnitude, people prioritise being pragmatic over vague promises that everything will be ok, as the results of that referendum proved. It's looking like this referendum will follow the same path (in terms of the result, I mean).

 

[mclem]

I'm guessing that the polls, as well excluding Northern Ireland, also don't include the 1.2m UK expats living in the EU - who I guess will vote overwhelmingly to Remain.

My parents are in that bracket and are in a situation where exit has potential extra risks (healthcare-related) - as such they're very nervous about it. Fortunately they've only been gone about ten years, so they're still eligible.

Polling cards have arrived at my neck of the woods.

 

[phisheep]

Depends if those expats have lived outside the UK for less than 15 years because they can't vote otherwise.

Given there's about 5 million expats altogether, 1.2m is probably low balling the less-than-15-years number.

 

[Maledict]

Telegraph is reporting that the ground game being reported by the media isn't actually how it's going at all. Remain have 140 more local events a week than Leave, with 32% of their events in key targeted areas versus just 3% for Leave.

That's a huge organisational advantage for Remain in the ground game- whereas if you listened to the media you'd think Leave was the one with all the events and volunteers.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

Another day another scare story, this time the IFS saying two more years of austerity should we pull out.

Shame the IFS have been funded by the EU, as that just gives Brexiters an excuse to call bias.

This definitely has "absolute HORSE SHIT" written all over it. Whether we stay or leave Europe will have no bearing on how long the austerity measures will last simply because austerity measures are here to stay for good. Even if the Government miraculously paid off all the UK Debt and had a surplus of 500 trillion monopoly pounds they would still maintain spending at austerity levels.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This definitely has "absolute HORSE SHIT" written all over it. Whether we stay or leave Europe will have no bearing on how long the austerity measures will last simply because austerity measures are here to stay for good. Even if the Government miraculously paid off all the UK Debt and had a surplus of 500 trillion monopoly pounds they would still maintain spending at austerity levels.

If leaving the EU has a negative economic impact, then government income will lower also and they'll keep their expenses lower because of it.

Whether that is the right choice is a whole other story of course.

 

[Greddleok]

I'm trying to vote from Germany, but finding a proxy who lives near my ballot office isn't easy!

 

[mrklaw]

is it just me, or is all news around this poll summarised as:

"independent or at least official body published data today saying that if Britain votes to leave, it will be worse off for a/b/c reasons. Brexit campaigners said 'Rargh what a load of tosh' yet had nothing material to say, further adding 'ooh scary immigrants'"

I don't think I've heard one reasoned argument from brexit, it is literally just scaremongering.

 

[Maledict]

Yep - they haven't learnt from Scotland at all (possibly because they can't). If you want massive change to win, you need to relate a positive image of the future that will be better than the status quo, and back it up with evidence and detail on how you do it.

The SNP managed the first part and got close to a win, but Leave aren't able to do either. People want reassurance that change will improve their lives, and all Leave are doing is screaming about Turkey invading.

You can craft a positive image for leave, but for whatever reason they aren't doing. I'd hate to say that a lot of their campaign is just based in racist scaremongering, but...

 

[CharmingCharlie]

If leaving the EU has a negative economic impact, then government income will lower also and they'll keep their expenses lower because of it.

Whether that is the right choice is a whole other story of course.

Well firstly there is no "if" about it, if we leave the EU there will be a negative economic impact, you would have to be a special kind of idiot to believe anything different. What is open to debate is how much of an impact it will have.

I call bullshit on this IFS report simply because austerity is never ending. It is irrelevant whether we stay in Europe or leave Europe spending levels by a Tory Government will be as low as they think they can get away with (and labour will probably do the same thing too).

I don't think I've heard one reasoned argument from brexit, it is literally just scaremongering.

The same can be said for the remain campaign. All we hear day in and day out from remain is "you are going to be destitute if we leave the EU, you will have to sell your children into slavery to afford bread if we leave the EU, you will have to eat your pets if we leave the EU". Both campaigns are utter shit shows no one has the high ground here. Both sides are lying through their teeth and using the worst scare tactics they can possibly use.

 

[Beefy]

Boris is great

 

[phisheep]

I don't think I've heard one reasoned argument from brexit, it is literally just scaremongering.

A reasoned argument for Brexit would look something like this:

We pay about £250m a week to the EU, what we get in return is a whole lot of regulation we could either do without or do better ourselves, and concessions of free movement that make it too easy for foreign nationals to come to the UK.

Leaving the EU is a big step, and it is important to say how we would set about it.

First of all, with the £250m a week we would save we will:

(a) Continue the existing essential subsidies to our hard-working farmers/reform farm subsidies in line with productivity/leave the farmers to fend for themselves/hand over the farms to workers collectives [*delete where applicable]

(b) Continue to support the poorest areas of the country in line with the current EU regional grants/apply regional grants only in line with agreement to local house building/force everybody to move to London/build a big airport on the wrong side of London [*delete where applicable]

(c) Build 50 new hospitals over the next decade/recruit 600,000 more nurses/deport all foreigners in the NHS and replace them with local workers/help the NHS to set up a commercial arm "NHS Worldwide" to plug the healthcare gap in the USA (for a fee) [*delete where applicable]

Parliamentary Sovereignty is a fundamental part of the UK constitution, and it is important that we determine our own laws. To this end we will:

(a) Abolish all EU law as soon as we withdraw/keep all regulations and directives intact until we work out what the hell is going on/ abolish the House of Lords/abolish Scotland/annex Spain [*delete where applicable]

(b) Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights/Continue to support the European Convention on Human Rights/ Institute a new even more supreme court/reinstate the House of Lords/annex Ukraine [*delete where applicable]

(c) Institute British standards and regulations for everything/reduce the red tape that strangles British business/support our hard-working British red-tape manufacturers [*delete where applicable]

Since we will be free of European interference we shall bring forward proposals to:

(a) Nationalise the railways and subsidise the steelworks/privatise whatever we can/encourage British investors/encourage chinese investors/encourage Russian investors [*delete where applicable]

(b) Increase the minimum wage and reduce VAT/decrease the minimum wage and increase VAT/abolish the minimum wage/increase corporation taxes/decrease corporation taxes [*delete where applicable]

(c) Compensate our hardworking MEPs for loss of office [*delete where applicable]

National Security is our top priority. We will:

(a) Build a wall across Ireland paid for by the Irish government/ trash Trident/ support our hardworking British arms suppliers/secure the co-operation of European intelligence agencies by selling them your email addresses/arm our police force/disarm our police force/not open another airport/close the Channel Tunnel [*delete where applicable]

Trade is the cornerstone of our island economy. We will:

(a) Trade anywhere and everywhere on WTO terms/Nationalise the City of London so it can't escape to Frankfurt/seek trade relationships directly with China/build only 100 hospitals and pay the EU for access to the Single Market [*delete where applicable]

It is important for our financial standing that the transition is managed properly. To this end, people of all political parties will come together led by Nigel/Boris/Jeremy/Michael/Douglas/Michael Douglas/Donald [*delete where applicable] to form a Government of National Interest throughout the transitional period which will last about two/seven/twenty/five [*delete where applicable] years/months/decades [*delete where applicable].

We will Make Britain Great Again!

p.s. the pound in your pocket will not be devalued

There's no policy beyond "leave".

 

[JonathanEx]

I guess it's hard for there to be a policy beyond 'Leave'. Because there's no guarantee who'll be calling the shots next in the case of it, and how they argue and what they negotiate. Even within the Brexit Tories, there's nothing there. They can't reassure as they can't make any pledges about what a future government would do on any issue.

On another note, I'm so fucking bored of news coverage of this. In bulletins, like on the radio, it's just this swapping round every hour:
A person has said the UK should stay in the European Union because of (ISSUE). But so and so, from Vote Leave, disagrees and says (ISSUE) will be better if we leave.

And nobody learns fucking anything.

I mean to a degree I understand - and it's like, however much you fact check say, how much we pay in to Europe (as has been done a bit in the last week or so), it's so fucking what? It's not the amount we pay, even if you make it look massive in misleading numbers on steel (Boris), it's whether we think that's worth it. So we don't get much of it back - but do we think that's, on the whole, money well spent? Looking in to what that money goes on and thinking about that is more effort than many will follow I guess.

 

[TeddyBoy]

A reasoned argument for Brexit would look something like this:

There's no policy beyond "leave".

I think they'd get quite a bit of support if they announced they were renationalising a few industries, it would appeal to core labour voters who are so far not targeted by Vote Leave.

 

[Lucreto]

Listening to some of the public talking about if they should stay or go.

I heard on the radio of a couple living in Spain who are voting to leave because there are too many immigrants in the UK. They missed the irony that they are immigrants in Spain.

 

[kavanf1]

I think they'd get quite a bit of support if they announced they were renationalising a few industries, it would appeal to core labour voters who are so far not targeted by Vote Leave.

That would be an utter disaster; even Corbyn hasn't got much support for renationalising the railways or utilities industries. People can still remember how badly these services ran under public ownership with zero accountability.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That would be an utter disaster; even Corbyn hasn't got much support for renationalising the railways or utilities industries. People can still remember how badly these services ran under public ownership with zero accountability.

That's not true, actually. Something like ~60% of the public want the railways renationalized from the last time I checked the polling, it's a hugely popular policy with a big draw amongst C2DE voters.

 

[kavanf1]

That's not true, actually. Something like ~60% of the public want the railways renationalized from the last time I checked the polling, it's a hugely popular policy with a big draw amongst C2DE voters.

Holy crap, that's interesting, am surprised it's so high. Have you got a link to the polling you're talking about?

Also what's C2DE?

 

[phisheep]

I guess it's hard for there to be a policy beyond 'Leave'. Because there's no guarantee who'll be calling the shots next in the case of it, and how they argue and what they negotiate. Even within the Brexit Tories, there's nothing there. They can't reassure as they can't make any pledges about what a future government would do on any issue.

Of course, and that's exactly my point.

It's like making a decision to leave home. First thing you have to know is where you are going to - it might not be where you want to be long term, but "where will I sleep tonight?" is a fundamental question that you need an answer to.

Also, you need a warm coat just in case. The equivalent for Brexit might be something like a very swiftly-arranged pegging Sterling to the US dollar (I have no idea whether that would be possible, but that sort of thing), because even as soon as 24th June it might rain.

It's not the amount we pay, even if you make it look massive in misleading numbers on steel (Boris), it's whether we think that's worth it. So we don't get much of it back - but do we think that's, on the whole, money well spent? Looking in to what that money goes on and thinking about that is more effort than many will follow I guess.

I try to think of it in concrete terms. The net £8.5 bn a year is roughly one and a half BBCs, or the approximate GDP of Aberdeen.


But yeah, if this is all that is on the cards it is going to be a very tedious month. Just vote Remain so it doesn't become a very tedious five years!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Holy crap, that's interesting, am surprised it's so high. Have you got a link to the polling you're talking about?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/

68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately. The British people also tend strongly to prefer a publicly-run National Health Service (as it is now) and a publicly-run Royal Mail (as it was until this year).

There's been more recent ones but that was the first Google result.

Also what's C2DE?

They're classes - C2 is where the primary earner in the household is skilled manual labour, D is unskilled manual labour, E is casual worker or long-term unemployed. Most polling companies stratify into ABC1 and C2DE groups for more accurate polling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, you need a warm coat just in case. The equivalent for Brexit might be something like a very swiftly-arranged pegging Sterling to the US dollar (I have no idea whether that would be possible, but that sort of thing), because even as soon as 24th June it might rain.

...? why would you want to peg the sterling to the dollar?

 

[phisheep]

...? why would you want to peg the sterling to the dollar?

I'm just shooting stuff from the hip here, but in view of the potential risks I thought it might be a good idea to (in the short term at least) peg it to something that is much much bigger and isn't a Euro. But I don't know what I am talking about - I'll admit that!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm just shooting stuff from the hip here, but in view of the potential risks I thought it might be a good idea to (in the short term at least) peg it to something that is much much bigger and isn't a Euro. But I don't know what I am talking about - I'll admit that!

If you did it straight away, you'd just make things incredibly difficult for the central bank because if we left the Eurozone people would want to sell pounds and buy dollars, so to keep the pegging level the central bank would have to use up huge amounts of foreign reserves. I don't really see the value in that. If you did it in six months or whatever... well, I still don't really see the point! That just means our monetary policy is dictated by the Fed. As a rule of thumb, unless you share identical business cycles with another economy or have some way of influencing their monetary policy decisions, pegs are not a good idea.

 

[phisheep]

Yeah. Stupid idea then. My bad.

What (if anything) would you suggest as a "warm coat" for 24th June?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah. Stupid idea then. My bad.

What (if anything) would you suggest as a "warm coat" for 24th June?

Dunno. you can't really prenegotiate anything with the EU because that would defeat the point of them trying to keep us in, and the US and China want the UK in the EU so they'll probably not have anything going. Not leaving in the first place is probably the warmest coat.

 

[kavanf1]

snip

Thanks for that, will take a look tomorrow.

 

[phisheep]

Dunno. you can't really prenegotiate anything with the EU because that would defeat the point of them trying to keep us in, and the US and China want the UK in the EU so they'll probably not have anything going. Not leaving in the first place is probably the warmest coat.

The only other thing I can think of as protection in the event of a "Leave" vote is for the PM to immediately announce that he will NOT notify the European Council of intention to leave the EU until such time as there is a credible transition plan. And even that's not a lot of protection.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The only other thing I can think of as protection in the event of a "Leave" vote is for the PM to immediately announce that he will NOT notify the European Council of intention to leave the EU until such time as there is a credible transition plan. And even that's not a lot of protection.

Pretty much. I don't envy the Leave campaign their task, risk aversion is a powerful obstacle.

 

[Uzzy]

I don't think I've heard one reasoned argument from brexit, it is literally just scaremongering.

The strongest argument I've seen for Brexit came from Tony Benn during the Maastricht Treaty debate.

I do not want to go over old ground, because this is not a question of yes or no to the status quo ; we are looking to the future. Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors. They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view. Others believe that the change is inevitable, and that the common currency will protect us from inflation and will provide a wage policy. They believe that it will control speculation and that Britain cannot survive alone. None of those arguments persuade me because the argument has never been about sovereignty.

I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is a sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation--not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country--has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under the which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou than from Madame Thatcher. That is not the issue.

I recognise that, when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, "My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them."

I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us. We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a right hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe, one cannot get rid of them.

Quite how persuasive that argument is I can't say. I do think that arguments about the economy and policies are far more persuasive than arguments about democracy, and in that regard the Leave camp have a real struggle.

They can bang on about immigration, but that just opens them up to the charge of being racist hatemongers. I'm sure the more right wing Tories in the Leave camp would love to bring up the workers rights the EU protects, but I don't think 'we want you to work 60 hours a week' will be a vote winner. As for the economy, while they could reasonably argue as to the scale of the disruption, it'd be ludicrous for Leave to say there wouldn't be any pain whatsoever.

 

[King_Moc]

The strongest argument I've seen for Brexit came from Tony Benn during the Maastricht Treaty debate.



Quite how persuasive that argument is I can't say. I do think that arguments about the economy and policies are far more persuasive than arguments about democracy, and in that regard the Leave camp have a real struggle.

They can bang on about immigration, but that just opens them up to the charge of being racist hatemongers. I'm sure the more right wing Tories in the Leave camp would love to bring up the workers rights the EU protects, but I don't think 'we want you to work 60 hours a week' will be a vote winner. As for the economy, while they could reasonably argue as to the scale of the disruption, it'd be ludicrous for Leave to say there wouldn't be any pain whatsoever.

The easy way round that is to just continue to not put the negative stuff in the manifesto. Seems to work ok for them. Even UKIP have learnt to stop talking about things like private health insurance, and giving businesses the option to grant paid leave and maternity pay. Most voters won't look any further than what's in front of them, so this works every time.

 

[Stallion Dan]

If my facebook feed were votes, Leave would win by a landslide.

 

[Hasney]

If my facebook feed were votes, Leave would win by a landslide.

Yeah, the internet can be a megaphone for vocal minorities. Americans say the same about Bernie Sanders being elected with how much yelling his supporters do.

 

[phisheep]

If my facebook feed were votes, Leave would win by a landslide.

... and Scotland would be independent and Ed Miliband Prime Minister.

 

[xandaca]

I think the Mail is banned on here, but there's an article on the site ("It's an unholy mess - but here's why I'm voting to stay in the EU") which, surprising considering where it's published, sums up my views on the referendum almost exactly. For all the ludicrous, apocalyptic fearmongering on both sides, there are both very compelling reasons for staying in and very compelling reasons for leaving.

Like the writer, on balance I fall on the 'Remain' side, while acknowledging the European project's serious democratic shortcomings and focus on potentially damaging idealism over difficult reality. I'm not mad about free movement in a union of culturally and financially very different nations - I'd prefer eased movement, where standards for residency are significantly lowered for civilians of member states but with each nation making the final call - or, objectively, that the EU can set laws overriding those set by democratically elected governments, even if, subjectively, the sorts of anti-worker laws that could be passed by the likes of the Tories without EU oversight could be horrendous. Nevertheless, the free market is a great achievement and invaluable for businesses and workers, the ECJ has done some good things, and the principles of the EU in diplomatic terms are certainly commendable, even if their applicability is often questionable. Our best option, IMO, remains to stay in and try to be a positive influence in sorting out the shambles, rather than going it completely alone in a scenario we'd definitely survive, but probably not be better off in the long run.

 

[phisheep]

The strongest argument I've seen for Brexit came from Tony Benn during the Maastricht Treaty debate.

Quite how persuasive that argument is I can't say.

I do like Tony Benn. He puts things so persuasively and is still wrong.

Lets look at the EU institutions:

The European Council is made up of heads of government/heads of state - in our case David Cameron. And of course we can get rid of them.

The council of the European Union is made up of Government ministers from each state. And of course we can get rid of them.

The EU Parliament is directly elected.

The Commission is different, being more a civil-service type thing. But Commissioners must be approved by Parliament and can be removed by the ECJ or the Council or by the Commission itself.

Now, of course we Brits cannot on our own remove or replace majorities in any of these bodies. But we Europeans can. In the same vein, the voters of Scotland cannot on their own bring down Westminster, but the voters of the UK can. And that does not make Scotland undemocratic, it just means they don't always get the governmnet they want - which isn't quite the same thing.

I think the Mail is banned on here, but there's an article on the site ("It's an unholy mess - but here's why I'm voting to stay in the EU") which, surprising considering where it's published, sums up my views on the referendum almost exactly. For all the ludicrous, apocalyptic fearmongering on both sides, there are both very compelling reasons for staying in and very compelling reasons for leaving.

Ah. Max Hastings. I was wondering when he would show up. Was expecting him to veer far more towards the Leave camp.

I don't read into this any compelling reason for leaving - rather a compelling reason for leaving along with everybody else and rebuilding the thing from scratch. Which to me looks like the functional equivalent of staying inside and reforming it, only scarier.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Now, of course we Brits cannot on our own remove or replace majorities in any of these bodies. But we Europeans can. In the same vein, the voters of Scotland cannot on their own bring down Westminster, but the voters of the UK can. And that does not make Scotland undemocratic, it just means they don't always get the governmnet they want - which isn't quite the same thing.

This is obviously true but it's also the case that the larger an electorate for any given election, the larger those disenfranchised groups become. This isn't an argument against the existence of the EU per se, but IMO it is an argument to ensure that laws are devolved down as far as they can be whilst still being practical. Eg cross-border infrastructure projects in Europe cannot be decided by Welwyn-Hatfield council. But that does rather suggest that we don't need certain things which currently operate at the EU level to continue to do so. It's obviously not cut and dry but I think we can all acknowledge a sort of causal relationship between "stuff the EU does" and "the potential to be disenfranchised". The more stuff they do, the more chance we end up with laws that few in the UK agree with but can do nothing about. This is all to say nothing of the fact that, whilst the council is typically elected, they aren't elected to perform that role.

I've said before that I'm voting remain, but in my big, metaphorical black board with "for" and "against" columns, "democratic problems" weighs heavily on the negative side for me, even if it's largely a theoretical problem. The stuff in the other column makes up for it (and then some) thus my intent to vote remain, but that doesn't mean the problems with democracy cease to exist and I've never had anyone come even close to convincing me that I'm wrong - the best I've ever had is that it doesn't matter that I'm correct.

 

[danowat]

The news of the increase in net migration has got the right wing Brexiters champing at the bit.....

 

[Hasney]

The news of the increase in net migration has got the right wing Brexiters champing at the bit.....

Totally. So only a matter of time they say something dumb during an anger stroke.

 

[phisheep]

I've said before that I'm voting remain, but in my big, metaphorical black board with "for" and "against" columns, "democratic problems" weighs heavily on the negative side for me, even if it's largely a theoretical problem. The stuff in the other column makes up for it (and then some) thus my intent to vote remain, but that doesn't mean the problems with democracy cease to exist and I've never had anyone come even close to convincing me that I'm wrong - the best I've ever had is that it doesn't matter that I'm correct.

I have considerable sympathy with that. But I'm not altogether convinced that it is a failure of democracy in the EU that is at fault, as opposed to a sort of institutional failure.

Part of the problem with the current set-up is that it creates perverse incentives for National governments to push things up to the EU level rather than what they should be doing and keeping local things local. Essentially, if a Government wants to do something unpopular it has a strong incentive (because of wanting to get itself re-elected) to push this up to the EU level so that (a) the unpopular thing gets done and (b) they can blame the EU for it afterwards. And this, I think, is part of the reason that the EU ends up doing big unpopular things that overreach what it should be there for. And then getting blamed for it.

 

[Camoxide]

That would be an utter disaster; even Corbyn hasn't got much support for renationalising the railways or utilities industries. People can still remember how badly these services ran under public ownership with zero accountability.

The Railway is pretty much already under government control anyway. All the tracks and stations are state/Network Rail owned and the government tells the franchise holders what to do.

 

[Goldfishking]

I'm guessing that the polls, as well excluding Northern Ireland, also don't include the 1.2m UK expats living in the EU - who I guess will vote overwhelmingly to Remain.

Paxman did a program on brexit that's on BBC iplayer. He went to spain and interviewed UK expats. They were for leaving the EU.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I have considerable sympathy with that. But I'm not altogether convinced that it is a failure of democracy in the EU that is at fault, as opposed to a sort of institutional failure.

Part of the problem with the current set-up is that it creates perverse incentives for National governments to push things up to the EU level rather than what they should be doing and keeping local things local. Essentially, if a Government wants to do something unpopular it has a strong incentive (because of wanting to get itself re-elected) to push this up to the EU level so that (a) the unpopular thing gets done and (b) they can blame the EU for it afterwards. And this, I think, is part of the reason that the EU ends up doing big unpopular things that overreach what it should be there for. And then getting blamed for it.

I think you're 100% correct there. And you're right that it's about how the EU is used. But it is, nonetheless, a enabler in that capacity. Again, I think it's mostly a theoretical problem but I think they're important things to think about when the issue of ceding sovereignty comes up.