Cameron's Referendum

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Feb 25 2016 10:53

Noah #61

Noah, you're at the madame! Gasp!

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 25 2016 11:00
Auld-bod wrote:
Noah #61

Noah, you're at the madame! Gasp!

Ok, now I'm really confused.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Feb 25 2016 11:35

Noah, let me be clear, I do not think you’re a ‘pious anarchist’.

You don’t think you have all the answers (and importantly can admit it). All of us at times leave ourselves open to the accusation of being self-righteous pompous asses. The pious are oblivious of this fact.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 25 2016 12:51

Hey, maybe we should form a 1960s retro anarcho singing duet?

THE SELF RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS!

Certainly some of the posters on this thread seem to have 'lost that loving feeling'.

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Feb 25 2016 13:58
Burgers wrote:
red and black riot wrote:
Noah Fence wrote:
red and black riot wrote:
leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Are you comfortable enough not to be affected by what the Tories are doing? Just asking.

I take that means you will be voting Labour/Green/Lib Democrats then, just asking.

I certainly won't be voting Lib Dem but I will probably vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be PM at the next general election because there is a real chance he will make things better for working class people if he gets in, if only a bit better. Things will be better for myself and my family. I am well aware that the working class needs to self organise and manage itself, but that is not happening.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 25 2016 14:05

Well, Red and Black. I have to disagree in every way but if you're mind is made up then fair enough.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Feb 25 2016 14:17
Burgers wrote:

That would suggest I'm vote no, but I'm not.

No it wouldn't because I didn't, this is a strawman. If anyone was suggesting that you'd vote no it was yourself with that terrible comment.

Quote:
I was pointing out that voting for either makes little difference, but voting for the EU is to vote for the continuation of EU polices which all of the above are,

If that were true you were doing an abysmal job. You taking a no vote line by criticising the EU with another strawman, that these nasty awful things are an EU construction alone, which their not. Indeed the EU far from being an alien system represents most of the nastiest aspects of British society, and I suspect its the same in most member states.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Feb 25 2016 17:11

I think there's a certain fetishisation of not voting in this discussion. Talk of betraying principles is a bit daft because 'thou shalt not vote, never' should not be a principle. Not voting is a tactic or it might be a general feeling of futility but once we start to invoke the iron law of abstention, then we're on dodgy ground.

Occasionally, one might tactically participate in such shenanigans - for example, with the referendum in Ireland over abortion, I would have definitely broke my usual abstention and voted had I lived there at the time. With the in/out EU referendum however, I see both sides as offering nothing but pain for the working class so will give it a swerve - though if anyone can find a good proletarian reason to support one side or the other, then good luck to them. Likewise, if it was a choice of being faced with a few more years of rule by that horrid Mr Cameron or voting for a superficial change with that nice Mr Corbyn, then I'd understand voting for Labour (for the record I'll probably abstain).

What I don't understand is when people believe such voting would make any significant changes or do any real damage to capitalism. It wouldn't. In fact it would bolster capitalism, though admittedly, in a less vicious form. And maybe that's good enough reason for some.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Feb 25 2016 17:39
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combatted internationally - EU or no EU.

And, yes, the EU is super neo-liberal, but freedom of movement within the EU is pretty damn nice. Of course a vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism but I'd rather have a capitalism with freedom of movement and 26 paid vacation days...

EDIT: or visa-less travel, if we don't want to use the boss' terminology.

So try this on:

"Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combated internationally, Corbyn or no Corbyn.

And yes, a vote for Corbyn is a vote for capitalism, but having a more left capitalism is pretty damn nice. I'd rather have capitalism that allows unions to organize, is sympathetic to social welfare, funds education....and provides 26 paid vacation days"

So now that you've got your paid vacation days, what do you say to the unemployed who might be inclined to tell you to piss off?

I wish I could say I'm surprised that any participant in Libcom could seriously consider voting or supporting, or approving, or accepting a vote for membership in the EU.... I mean look at how that's worked out for workers in Greece...or Spain...or Italy.....or Portugal.

But I'm not.

Me? I kind of wonder what those who denounced Marx's endorsement of the North in the US Civil War have to say about this equivocating about British membership in the EU.

Step right up, RC, lettersjournal, soapy, Sander.

The EU is not an incarnation of the IMWA. It provides no opportunity for proletarian internationalism, generating in its direct and indirect actions nothing but chauvinism.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Feb 26 2016 02:02

I genuinely don't have much of an opinion one way or another about whether the UK should leave or stay in the EU, nor would I be likely to vote if I still lived there but I think whether or not someone decides to vote in this referendum is a bit of a small hill for your anarchist principles to live or die on.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 26 2016 03:24
Quote:
So now that you've got your paid vacation days, what do you say to the unemployed who might be inclined to tell you to piss off?

I didn't know you and Burgers had gone into the straw business together? You'll have to let me know how that works out for the two of you.

Quote:
The EU is not an incarnation of the IMWA.

I wish I could say someone on libcom had made this argument. Or anything even remotely close to it.

But I can't.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 27 2016 15:10
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Steven. wrote:
But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital. On economic matters they do not act like jilted partners. As we have seen from the G20 meeting, basically global capital wants the UK to remain in the EU, and capital within the EU particularly so.

There is no way that the remaining governments of the EU are going to massively damage their own economies because of hurt feelings. So there would be no issue with the UK joining the EEA, as Khawaga rightly points out. Which would then mean with regard to basically all of the issues people are talking about we would be in exactly the same position as we are now (visa-free movement within it, European laws/protections and European neoliberalism).

I think a really big issue with this referendum is that actually the Out camp hasn't answered any questions about what it will actually mean. TBH I'm not sure they're going to be able to because much of it will be unknowable at the moment, because it will depend on what other countries decide afterwards. And also their camp will be divided. Farage for example wouldn't want to remain in the EEA, as then "free movement" would remain. If this remains the case (which I believe it will), then I cannot see people voting for a massive unknown, especially as the press will ramp up the bogeyman of "economic insecurity"

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 27 2016 15:35
Steven. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Steven. wrote:
But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital. On economic matters they do not act like jilted partners. As we have seen from the G20 meeting, basically global capital wants the UK to remain in the EU, and capital within the EU particularly so.

There is no way that the remaining governments of the EU are going to massively damage their own economies because of hurt feelings. So there would be no issue with the UK joining the EEA, as Khawaga rightly points out. Which would then mean with regard to basically all of the issues people are talking about we would be in exactly the same position as we are now (visa-free movement within it, European laws/protections and European neoliberalism).

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Feb 27 2016 19:53

Steven #73
‘Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital.’

I feel both Steven and radicalgaffiti are making good points, however future events may spring some surprises. Steven’s statement above is generally true, though because capitalism is chaotic and made up of competing interests, internally and externally, it often throws up surprising policy changes (though of course always in what is perceived as the general good of the system).

Watching a documentary the other day, it was stated by a government minister at the time, a reason why the RAF for the first year of WWII dropped only leaflets on Germany, was because the munition factories were ‘private property’. And as we all know, private property is sacrosanct to capitalism. Later after the Nazis started kicking the crap out of the allied armies, this policy was scrapped – in the greater interest of British capital.

EDIT
Substituted 'sacrosanct' for sacred!

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 27 2016 17:38
radicalgraffiti wrote:
There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

I think I'm changing my mind on this one.
Most other countries don't have the potential to do this as they're not net contributors (like the UK) and they don't have huge euro debts (like Greece)
If Poland etc threatened to leave then their bluff would be called.
As the leaving process would take time there probably wouldn't be a break in membership between the EU/EEA.
And while Britain does kick in a relatively large amount of cash, British capitalism has reaped the rewards of cheap european labour. Other countries don't want hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed citizens returning any more than British businesses want to lose employees and see the labour pool dropping given that there is already slight upward pressure on wages iirc.
With the huge numbers of British ex-pats in places like Spain France and Greece there could be serious problems if they all suddenly had to come home, imagine the Spanish property market if all the retirees started coming home.
I still think voting in a referendum on an issue of direct interest is acceptable, but I'm not sure any more that this is a direct interest (although if Britain left the EU and didn't join the EEA I would technically lose my job. ) and I imagine that a referendum with a real choice would be unlikely to be offered but it's possible.

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
Feb 27 2016 20:31

As an anarchist I will be arguing for leaving the EU. The centralising of state control is against all we believe in isn't it?

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Feb 27 2016 22:23

Auld-bold #60

Quote:
As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice

Personally, I think Scottish nationalism is just a petty diversion; I reserve my hatred for African nationalism.

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Feb 27 2016 22:42

Sleeper:

Quote:
The centralising of state control

A decision to leave the EU will not decentralise state control, it will mean that the UK will move further towards the centralistion of US state control. For this reason only (and I don't care to explain why) I am for a NO vote, although of course, as a member of the party of anarchy I will abstain from voting myself.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 28 2016 16:24
radicalgraffiti wrote:
this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

Sleeper wrote:
As an anarchist I will be arguing for leaving the EU. The centralising of state control is against all we believe in isn't it?

No, anarchism is about abolishing states, and capitalism and replacing them with a society run by people ourselves, with production based on needs, not private profit.

It is not about choosing between different states, or leaders of different nationalities (British or Belgian).

James MacBryde wrote:
Auld-bold #60

Quote:
As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice

Personally, I think Scottish nationalism is just a petty diversion; I reserve my hatred for African nationalism.

James, you posting complete nonsense is one thing. But you posting racist nonsense is another. You are now temporarily banned. You can come back if you retract this comment and desist from your off topic rubbish. Send us an e-mail to let us know (libcom.org at Gmail.com)

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Feb 28 2016 23:34
Quote:
James, you posting complete nonsense is one thing. But you posting racist nonsense is another. You are now temporarily banned. You can come back if you retract this comment and desist from your off topic rubbish. Send us an e-mail to let us know (libcom.org at Gmail.com)

That's the least bit of this clown's racism. He's the guy who said that slaves had it better of than wage-workers because slaves received more exposure to natural light.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 28 2016 23:54

Didn't see that, well that's another reason to be rid of him. Anyway no more derailing, back to the topic at hand. Further off topic comments will be deleted.

admin: subsequent off topic comment deleted, moved here: http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/banning-user-29022016

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Mar 2 2016 08:49

Actually, having given it more thought I'm probably going to abstain from voting. I didn't know the Human Rights Act was thanks to the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU and is just an advisory body). Also the EU makes statements, such as urging countries to boycott arms to Saudi Arabia (European Parliament) and criticising Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the illegal settlements- but they don't actually do anything. It's also ofcourse clearly a capitalist institution and one that is pro-austerity- just look at how they treated Greece.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 29 2016 14:00
red and black riot wrote:
Actually, having given it more thought I'm probably going to abstain form voting. I didn't know the human rights act was thanks to the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU as far as I know and is just an advisory body). Also the EU makes statements, such as urging countries to boycott arms to Saudi Arabia (European Parliament) and criticising Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the illegal settlements- but they don't actually do anything. It's also ofcourse clearly a capitalist institution and one that is pro-austerity- just look at how they treated Greece.

Just been reading this R&BR. A pretty good and simply put argument against voting with a bit of pro voting sentiment in the comments.

http://libcom.org/library/why-anarchists-dont-vote

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 29 2016 14:04

DP

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 29 2016 14:02
Steven. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Steven. wrote:
If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

Steven. wrote:
[
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 29 2016 14:18
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Steven. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Yes, this is right. However it was a "better deal", by threatening to leave. So that undermines your point.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
[
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

Quote:
the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

Quote:

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 29 2016 15:40
Steven. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Steven. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Yes, this is right. However it was a "better deal", by threatening to leave. So that undermines your point.

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

Steven. wrote:
Quote:
Steven. wrote:
If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

you arrogant arsehole.

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

Steven. wrote:
Quote:
Steven. wrote:
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

Quote:
the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

this doesn't conflict at all, the anti EU campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic, and some people wish to leave the EU and join the EEA for business reasons. UKIP, Boris etc may wish to leave alltogeather but other people wish to leave and join the EEA and intend to use the xenophobice anti EU sentiment to achieve the goals.

Steven. wrote:
Quote:

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

when i said "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " I MEANT "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " not the entire out campaign ffs

i'm not saying definitely that the after leavign the EU the UK will definitely not join the EEA, i'm saying it we can't assume it will happen automatically, and it is possible that the uk would leave the eu and not join the EEA.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 29 2016 16:47
radicalgraffiti wrote:
not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

I don't understand how this relates to the discussion.

You said that you thought that the EU wouldn't let the UK enter the EEA, as they would one countries thinking they could leverage concessions by leaving. I pointed out that the UK leveraged (admittedly shit) concessions by threatening to leave, so clearly they believe that the goal of keeping the UK in the EU is worth the risk of other countries trying the same thing. The EEA would be no different to the EU in this regard, as the economic benefits to the rest of Europe would be about the same.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

you arrogant arsehole.

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

firstly, this is a no flaming forum. Desist from personal insults.

Negotiation may or may not be required, as the UK is already part of the EEA.

In terms of the latter bit of your point, the other countries having no motivation to give the UK a better deal, I don't get what this means. Being part of the EEA is a pretty fixed package. And the point is it is not a "better" deal than being part of the EU.

The basic substance of my point is that the rest of Europe wants the UK to remain in the EU, as it is in all of their economic interests. If the referendum goes the wrong way, it will then be in their best interests for the UK to remain part of the EEA.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
Quote:
Steven. wrote:
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

Quote:
the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

this doesn't conflict at all, the anti EU campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic, and some people wish to leave the EU and join the EEA for business reasons. UKIP, Boris etc may wish to leave alltogeather but other people wish to leave and join the EEA and intend to use the xenophobice anti EU sentiment to achieve the goals.

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen any anti-EU types saying we should remain part of (not join BTW) the EEA. Could you direct me to some please? If they do this would be quite bizarre because basically the only difference between the two groups is EU fishery and agricultural laws don't apply in EEA. And I have not seen a single campaign in the Out campaign complaining about repressive EU fishery and agricultural laws.

Quote:
Steven. wrote:
Quote:

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

when i said "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " I MEANT "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " not the entire out campaign ffs

i'm not saying definitely that the after leavign the EU the UK will definitely not join the EEA, i'm saying it we can't assume it will happen automatically, and it is possible that the uk would leave the eu and not join the EEA.

again, who are these people? Seriously maybe this is a faction I just haven't noticed (although this seems very unlikely). Could you name some of them?

I didn't say it would definitely happen either, as I have said repeatedly.

Of course that's not even mentioning the single market. As even if we did leave the EU and the EEA, there would still be the option (again, preferable to capital) of us remaining in the single market, like Switzerland.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 29 2016 19:24
Quote:
In terms of the latter bit of your point, the other countries having no motivation to give the UK a better deal, I don't get what this means. Being part of the EEA is a pretty fixed package. And the point is it is not a "better" deal than being part of the EU.

A "better deal" could be understood as not allowing the UK to take so many exceptions as they have today? But yeah, usually the EEA is pretty much a fixed package with some minor modifications here and there (some exceptions are permanent, others are temporary).

fidel gastro
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Feb 29 2016 22:33

Good piece by the SPGB on why we should abstain from the referendum http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/workers-have-no-f...

I must say though, I'm tempted to vote to stay simply because the Ukippers and probably most of the Tories want me to do the opposite.

Topic locked