Are we In or Out?

[Boozy]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

To be honest I wouldn't let that sway your mind too much considering Cameron and Osborne are on the other side. 

Good point. The lesser of two evils I suppose. 

 

To to be honest, I'm not in because of who is on the exit team. It just seems like another reason to stay. 

[Alex DeLarge]

Just now, Boozy said:

Good point. The lesser of two evils I suppose. 

 

To to be honest, I'm not in because of who is on the exit team. It just seems like another reason to stay. 

Yeah, I mean looking at it from that perspective could portray Obama vs. Trump and I'm pretty sure it'd be best to agree with the former.

[bamber]

10 minutes ago, Slugworth said:

I'm Out. Not finding the European Superstate a fun idea.

 

Time will tell.

There may one day be a European Superstate, if there is, it is probably many, many years in the future, but even if it does ever come about, would it really be such a bad thing? Being close with the rest of Europe sounds like loads of fun to me. I have been lucky enough to travel and live in many parts of Europe, I have traversed the entire coast all the may round from Brittany to Malaga at one time or another. Almost everyone I have ever met on the continent, has in one way or another, been cool as fuck. Nationalism and isolationism are poison. Embrace togetherness and fix the bits that are admittedly broken with love, passion and thoughtful compromise . Left alone we all become Boris, Hunt and Farage, that is not my country.

[phillyfaddle]

Nick Cohen summarises pretty much how I feel:

"There are dozens of good reasons for leaving the EU. Before endorsing them you should ask, do you feel that the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Bank of England, IMF, OECD and the hundreds of economists we survey this week are all lying? Do you feel that all our allies who are begging us to stay wish to lead us to our ruin? Do you feel that Boris Johnson is fit to be prime minister or any kind of minister for that matter? Do you feel that Scotland won’t leave? Do you feel that Irish politics won’t darken? Do you feel that Putin won’t rejoice? Do you feel the Leave gang will find answers in June to the questions it cannot answer in May? In short, you’ve gotta ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, musky said:

I see the referendum largely as an argument between the rich and powerful over how best to screw us over and as such I'm minded not to vote at all. 

You could hardly be more wrong,  there's a tremendous amount which has been for the benefit of working folk, aside from the environmental and other matters. 

http://eumatters.prospect.org.uk/2016/01/29/what-has-europe-ever-done-for-the-workers/

[musky]

6 minutes ago, clarkete said:

You could hardly be more wrong,  there's a tremendous amount which has been for the benefit of working folk, aside from the environmental and other matters. 

http://eumatters.prospect.org.uk/2016/01/29/what-has-europe-ever-done-for-the-workers/

I'd suggest that the rights that have been passed on to us are a result of pressure from workers movements in countries where they don't roll over quite like we do in the UK. And that's the point - we don't get these rights through the beneficence of our politicians but because they make concessions to keep as much power and wealth in the hands of the few as they can get away with. It's the fear of losing more that keeps them on their toes - it's exactly the way we were granted the welfare state. That never stops the same people trying to claw that back, as seen by the attacks on working rights all over Europe and the drafting of TTIP. 

[clarkete]

11 minutes ago, musky said:

I'd suggest that the rights that have been passed on to us are a result of pressure from workers movements in countries where they don't roll over quite like we do in the UK. And that's the point - we don't get these rights through the beneficence of our politicians but because they make concessions to keep as much power and wealth in the hands of the few as they can get away with. It's the fear of losing more that keeps them on their toes - it's exactly the way we were granted the welfare state. That never stops the same people trying to claw that back, as seen by the attacks on working rights all over Europe and the drafting of TTIP. 

Doesn't that emphasise the benefit of you voting to remain, so that you won't lose those rights? 

[bamber]

1 hour ago, musky said:

I'm all for that, but sadly calling out the politicians and the money that they're the mouthpieces for is sadly missing. Blaming Baby Boomers is a vice even the Daily Mail has indulged in, and given their penchant for blaming anyone other than the real culprits it should be no surprise that it has about as much credibility as blaming immigrants for our current hardships. 

I see the referendum largely as an argument between the rich and powerful over how best to screw us over and as such I'm minded not to vote at all. 

It you are inclined to disengage yourself from the process then the rich and powerful just become more powerful as you become one less person for them to worry about. If you were to engage with politics and the European project by becoming active instead of passive you would have far more chance of having an influence. Brick by brick every one of us that desires it, has more chance of affecting it, as we each one by one engage.

 

[Chewie]

In

I wish they would just get it over with now. The constant stream of it in the news, is so frustrating, as they seem to have ran out of actual things to say

[CaledonianGonzo]

6 hours ago, phillyfaddle said:

Nick Cohen summarises pretty much how I feel:

I can accept being on the same side as Cameron and Osborne on this - but not Nick Cohen.

[grumpyhack]

If you don't vote you've no right to complain about the outcome afterwards.

[whisty]

13 hours ago, HattersBoy said:

Am in but saw a poll where the only category who wanted out more than in were over 50's. Why would that be?

Maybe somebody else answered, not read every post. A lot of it is because they want the Old England back. It's never going to happen obviously! 

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, Mich1268 said:

well normally in but after cameron foolishly said house prices would drop, I wouldn't half love my children to be able to buy like my generation could. absolute disgrace a whole generation are beholden to landlords. but yeah I am in I suppose. 

house prices will never fall by magic. It'll be due to other factors.

In this particular case it will be because interest rates rise &/or jobs are lost, meaning that the 'average' chance of someone being able to buy/afford a house will be identical to now.

The only way that prices fall and houses become easier to buy will be if there's more houses available to buy, or if the population falls.
(NOTE: no one on the brexit side is saying that foreigners will be expelled [they're saying they will not be], so the population won't be falling).

The law of supply and demand won't be magically suspended.

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[musky]

 

7 hours ago, clarkete said:

Doesn't that emphasise the benefit of you voting to remain, so that you won't lose those rights? 

I don't believe that voting to remain alone will preserve those rights, simply because there is an underlying pressure from the most wealthy and powerful to weaken those rights. That is exactly what TTIP will do, along with ending the NHS as we know it. 

That may sound as if I'm inclined to vote out, but those exact pressures are present in this country. Voting out will undoubtedly also see further attacks on workers rights in the form of 'cutting red tape' and the diminution of the NHS by our own government.

Heads they win, tails we lose. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, musky said:

That is exactly what TTIP will do, along with ending the NHS as we know it. 

it helps if you actually follow what's happening.

State healthcare provision is specifically excluded in the latest drafts of TTIP. TTIP doesn't undermine any human rights or workers rights either.

 

[musky]

8 hours ago, bamber said:

It you are inclined to disengage yourself from the process then the rich and powerful just become more powerful as you become one less person for them to worry about. If you were to engage with politics and the European project by becoming active instead of passive you would have far more chance of having an influence. Brick by brick every one of us that desires it, has more chance of affecting it, as we each one by one engage.

 

I'm neither disengaging from the process nor being passive. I just don't think that using the ballot box every few years is the end to the process, nor even really the beginning.

When the welfare state was being formulated during the Second World War it received cross party support. Bear in mind that voting had been suspended for the war, so there was no pressure from the ballot box, so why would such a radical change receive such widespread support? Quentin Hogg (later Lord Hailsham, so hardly a man with socialist credentials) put it this way: "We give them social reform or they give us socialist revolution". Essentially the establishment was running scared that they'd see exactly the same kind of revolutionary movements as had happened at the end of the First World War, so concessions were made to forestall that. When you consider that Britain was economically in a far worse position than we are now, it rather betrays the lie that we can't afford the welfare state. 

I'm fully in favour of engaging in the political process but also appreciate that means more than just casting my vote. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, musky said:

When you consider that Britain was economically in a far worse position than we are now, it rather betrays the lie that we can't afford the welfare state. 

the difference between then and now...?

What 'the people' were prepared to sacrifice to have that - over ten further years of rationing, for a start. Plus the high taxes.

If we want decent social provision we - not 'the rich' - have to be prepared to pay for it. *Everyone* has to be taxed high to then allow the govt to redistribute that money on the basis of need.

As soon as anyone thinks it's for others to do for them, the argument is lost to selfishness.

We can only afford the welfare state if we're prepared to pay for it. Don't blame the tories, blame your fellow man.

Edited May 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[Spindles]

1 hour ago, grumpyhack said:

If you don't vote you've no right to complain about the outcome afterwards.

I used to make this exact same statement, however abstention sends it's own message, that a member of the electorate feels that there is no true choice, that their voice does not count and will not lead to change in any meaningful way.  That is a vote in itself, I believe.

I would point out that I believe in mandatory voting, with a box to abstain (eg: none of the above, ala Brewsters millions).

[musky]

1 hour ago, grumpyhack said:

If you don't vote you've no right to complain about the outcome afterwards.

I most likely will vote (in), but as above I don't don't think that disengaging from one aspect of the democratic process means that my voice can't be heard. There are whole areas of our everyday lives that are completely untouched by popular democratic oversight, and as such effecting change involves stepping beyond parliamentary processes. 

[Guest]

Definitely out for me.

[musky]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the difference between then and now...?

What 'the people' were prepared to sacrifice to have that - over ten further years of rationing, for a start. Plus the high taxes.

If we want decent social provision we - not 'the rich' - have to be prepared to pay for it. *Everyone* has to be taxed high to then allow the govt to redistribute that money on the basis of need.

As soon as anyone thinks it's for others to do for them, the argument is lost to selfishness.

We can only afford the welfare state if we're prepared to pay for it. Don't blame the tories, blame your fellow man.

Indeed, although laying the blame for 10 years of rationing entirely at the door of the welfare state might be a step too far - both Britain and most of it's trading partners were in tatters at the end of WWII.

I shall just point out the widening gulf between the rich and poor at the moment. Not only are the wealthy paying themselves more, being taxed less (often a lower percentage of their income than their poorest workers) but they are quite legally avoiding paying that tax. That's neither just nor something that's going to change without some real pressure from the rest of the population. 

[MoilyX]

3 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

Definitely out for me.

Well, with that empassioned argument and irrefutable reasoning you've certainly won me over! 

[Guest]

Just now, MoilyX said:

Well, with that empassioned argument and irrefutable reasoning you've certainly won me over! 

I was never asked for impassioned argument and irrefutable reasoning. That's the problem with the EU - making things much more complicated than they need to be.:)

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, musky said:

Indeed, although laying the blame for 10 years of rationing entirely at the door of the welfare state might be a step too far - both Britain and most of it's trading partners were in tatters at the end of WWII.

I'm not blaming the welfare state for rationing, but I'm definitely blaming it for the amount of time after the war that rationing continued for. The UK had rationing long after all other places. That was part of the sacrifice people were prepared to make to have the NHS.

Today, few seem to even be prepared to pay 1% extra in tax towards it, despite expecting it to provide ever-greater services for the same money.  Yes, I know lots of people say they would (for health and pother things), but then they start putting conditions around it, like "we can't tax the poor more" even tho the poorest get a disproportionate amount of tax income back at them, or try to say the burden should only be on the rich ... and it ultimately ends up as naff all happening for the better.

If you want it, it's not coming from free.

 

3 minutes ago, musky said:

I shall just point out the widening gulf between the rich and poor at the moment. Not only are the wealthy paying themselves more, being taxed less (often a lower percentage of their income than their poorest workers) but they are quite legally avoiding paying that tax. That's neither just nor something that's going to change without some real pressure from the rest of the population. 

Yep.

But why do 'we' want to change it back? To penalise the rich, or because we believe in social justice?

If 'we' believe in social justice, then it's not only the rich who need to help fund that extra social justice - because that's not about social justice, it's about discrimination against the hated.

It's not just the rich who got tax breaks to help turn everything to shite. If we want to put 'social justice' back to where it was, it'#s about putting everything about it back where it was.

[RichardWaller]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

house prices will never fall by magic. It'll be due to other factors.

In this particular case it will be because interest rates rise &/or jobs are lost, meaning that the 'average' chance of someone being able to buy/afford a house will be identical to now.

The only way that prices fall and houses become easier to buy will be if there's more houses available to buy, or if the population falls.
(NOTE: no one on the brexit side is saying that foreigners will be expelled [they're saying they will not be], so the population won't be falling).

The law of supply and demand won't be magically suspended.

 

I missed this about Cameron saying house prices would fall if we left the EU. Very strange claim.. As you say, house prices aren't going to drop by magic and there are plenty of other factors, perhaps most significantly the failure of New Labour and Tories to build. I read the other day an article about Tony Blair getting himself a bit of a portfolio going in South Manchester/Stockport, it's never going to be in the interests of buy to let landlords to build affordable housing and reduce the rental and sell on value of their own properties. 

Anyway, people and circles and all that, I think most people I know think that falling house prices are a good thing... Not sure how many skint people Cameron knows mind.

Edited May 30, 2016 by RichardWaller