Why are all the twats voting leave?

[HeckyWithTheGoodBear]

Me being one of them probably

I can't find the list I saw earlier, but it's been playing on my mind all day.

It was a list of remain supporters - there was the Bank of England, the IMF, 99% of economists and big businesses, all the non racist newspapers, Steven Hawking, all unions, most councils, Obama etc etc

And a list of brexit supporters. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, the leader of ISIS, Vicky Pattison out of Geordie Shore

I'm sure I want to leave. I've started, read and engaged in very interesting debates on MN and elsewhere that have led me to this decision. I'm not saying it's clear cut, but I certainly don't think it's an obviously foolish vote to make. So why are the majority of influential and intelligent people voting remain, and the twats of the world voting leave?

Maybe it's just pre match nerves. But I can't help but thinking if all these geniuses reckon remain is the way to go, I've probably got it wrong.

Thoughts?

[iniquity]

Chicaguapa I voted remain reluctantly today and the only one of thoe points I agree with is it may be economically bad leaving.
I'm worried a strong remain vote by the UK population will give the impression we are happy with the EU when most of us probably aren't.

[Kimononono]

Are you stalking my threads small? That's really bad form but tbh I'm not surprised.

What I wrote on another post is a very valid concern to me. The very real issue of the continuing sexual attacks in Germany and EU are a problem to females or are we not supposed to talk about that. They are both of very similar cultures. Do I think all Turkish men are capable of this? Absolutly not.

Have I been harassed when I was younger when I went to turkey by groups of men? Yes I was every time I left the hotel. So for me, for my experience, it's something that I worry about. It's my valid opinion.

[merrymouse]

The thing I have found most difficult to understand about the leave campaign is what they want to replace the status quo:

higher wages for UK workers, which they think can be achieved by less immigration (why?) or more free trade which means more competition for UK businesses from countries with lower labour costs.

I wish there had been less focus on slogans and more focus on nitty gritty boring details. (On both sides). However, apparently that isn't how democracy works.

I don't know which side has more twats, but the general assumption has been that to win an election, it's more important to appeal to twats than intelligent people with a capacity to understand information.

[Viviennemary]

Bob taxdodger Geldolf wasn't exactly much help to the remain team. Rude and arrogant and multimillionaire..

[scaryteacher]

The thing I have found most difficult to understand about the leave campaign is what they want to replace the status quo:

What I've found difficult to understand about some of the remain campaign is that they don't understand we are voting for change whatever the result. You are not voting for a status quo here, there is no such thing where the EU is concerned. Whilst arch federalists such as Verhofstadt and Schulz are there, it's only going in one direction.

[smallfox1980]

I don't understand this "voting for change whatever the result" attitude, change at all costs?

But then scary, you then go make predictions based on little corroborating information, especially as we have an exemption from ever closer union.

[merrymouse]

we are voting for change whatever the result.

Obviously things change. Aliens could invade from Mars next week and take over the world. In a couple of year's time some event could trigger the UK parliament deciding to leave the EU anyway, but those things haven't happened yet.

By voting remain you are voting to stay part of the EU, as that is currently understood by the world. It means negotiating with Europe through the mechanisms of the EU and being part of the single market. It means not having to work out how on Earth there can be border control in Ireland.

Aliens could invade from Mars next week and take over the world. In a couple of year's time some event could trigger the UK parliament deciding to leave the EU anyway - but those things haven't happened yet.

However, it isn't at all clear what the stand point of the Remain campaign is on anything. Clearly immigration has been a huge factor in the campaign, yet nobody in the leave campaign has clarified whether they think the UK would still need access to the single market, which would necessitate accepting free movement of people.

People talk about having more freedom to trade with other countries, but don't explain what they would give up in order to be able to do that - there is always give and take in any trade.

People have talked about not having to deal with Brussels red tape - but does that mean they aren't bothered about selling anything to the 27 countries who are our nearest neighbours?

The Leave Campaign have been very good at communicating what they would like, but not how any of their wishes would work in reality.

[merrymouse]

There is absolutely no way that the EU can compel the UK or any other country towards 'ever closer union'.

No country needs a referendum to leave the EU - they can just leave.

[Winterbiscuit]

There is absolutely no way that the EU can compel the UK or any other country towards 'ever closer union'.

There's no guarantee we'll always avoid it while in the EU. Unfortunately, any country could give up their right to avoid it, or decide not to use their veto, if offered power, money or an exemption from something else. I don't trust every politician to not go down that road.

No country needs a referendum to leave the EU - they can just leave.

But how would that happen here, when all the main parties have backed remain, even though half the voting public don't?

[scaryteacher]

Read what I wrote very carefully smallfox. Did I say that we didn't have an opt out? No, I didn't.

I said that whatever happens there will be change because as we know from experience, the EU changes. From the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Lisbon, it has altered its character completely in 50 years. Thus, we are not voting for the status quo if the vote is to remain. Greece is still rumbling on, there will be more bail outs (fact); there is an election in Spain on Sunday (fact) that Podemos may win, and then there some in Italy wanting a referendum on the Euro(fact). There is further enlargement to come(fact), so more countries needing handouts and infrastructure help.

Whilst Verhofstadt and Schulz (and Juncker) are there, they will try and steer the EU towards a federal superstate(fact). Tusk is beginning to understand the problem (fact), but I don't know how much effect he will have. Charles Michel (Belgian PM) has recently said that the EU will have to reform (fact), but given he is very pro EU, I don't think it would be in a direction that the UK would necessarily agree with.

Is that enough 'corroborating information' for you? It's all out there. I've been reading it in the Brit and Flemish papers for days. The details about the new accessions are on the EU website. The opt out afaik still has to get through the EP, and they may choose not to allow it, and will have to be written into the Treaties when they are next opened.

I am not for change at all costs, you are being deliberately obtuse; I am merely pointing out that change is inevitable, whatever the outcome of the vote, We have the chance to deal with that change on our own terms if we leave.

[Winterbiscuit]

I wonder how much of the apparent new understanding of the problems are just for show, to try to get us to stay, and will evaporate after today.

[merrymouse]

There's no guarantee we'll always avoid it while in the EU. Unfortunately, any country could give up their right to avoid it, or decide not to use their veto, if offered power, money or an exemption from something else. I don't trust every politician to not go down that road.

The EU can offer or withdraw power and money from any country in the world whether or not they are part of the EU. Power is about far more than treaties and agreements. The EU's relationship with any country depends on the balance of power between the parties and their respective goals. Treaties and agreements just represent that. They aren't the power itself.

But how would that happen here, when all the main parties have backed remain, even though half the voting public don't?

As pointed out by scaryteacher, events change. Politicians are responsible to the electorate. Politicians draw their power from the consent of the people. There is currently little public desire for closer union with the EU.

Conversely, given that the Leave campaign haven't explained what they want, there is nothing to stop parliament leaving the EU and then mirroring every single agreement that we currently have with the EU. After all, as you say, the main parties have backed remain, half the voting public have backed remain, and the other half don't seem to know what they want.

[merrymouse]

Whilst Verhofstadt and Schulz (and Juncker) are there, they will try and steer the EU towards a federal superstate(fact)

Except that given that there is so little desire for this in so many countries, they are likely to be disappointed.

[smallfox1980]

AFAIK the opt out is legally binding in international law.

I think the amount the EU has changed over the course of its history is an indication that it is capable of change!

[StrictlyMumDancing]

But how would that happen here, when all the main parties have backed remain, even though half the voting public don't?

Should the outcome of this referendum be remain, I would hope that a political party, possibly a bit less extreme than UKIP but maybe just UKIP, emerges within Britain that contests the next general election with a remit of leaving, but one with a clear defined plan.

[scaryteacher]

I hadn't noticed that stopping Verfhofstadt over the past 7 years since he's been an MEP.

Did you see this today? www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-referendum-too-many-part-time-europeans-are-diluting-an-ever-closer-union-claims-jean-claude-a7095966.html

[scaryteacher]

AFAIK the opt out is legally binding in international law I am not however, holding my breath on that one. It needs to be written into the Treaties for any real reassurance, and we all know how many holes there are in the Treaties if you look hard enough.

[smallfox1980]

It will be written into the treaties when they are renewed and its very unlikely not to be.