So your solution to people democratically electing people you don't like, is to have laws set by people you don't elect, and hope that you like them?

Democracy is also the power to get people out.

I value the ability to elect my political representatives almost as highly as the free and open exchange of ideas. It's not ridiculous.

IanHamlett wrote:

I value the ability to elect my political representatives almost as highly as the free and open exchange of ideas.

Fair enough, but don't confuse the two.

OK, put it this way. The European Court of Human Rights is, mostly, a great thing. Although the judges are made up from all the various states they are not really democratically elected. The democratically elected British government wants out. If democracy is a thing then we should listen to it and comply, except we can't because we're in the EU. Cameron wants to be in but also wants to be able to ignore the stuff that he doesn't like. We've voted him in but most of Europe hasn't, so fuck them.

North Africa and the Middle East aren't threats to national security.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Surely it's how you govern your national economy? Having EU trade deals hasn't necessarily helped other member states climb out of their financial doldrums, Greece, Spain, Italy etc.  Norway and the Switzerland are doing fine.  

The issue here has been the Euro. That is pretty broken in its current state, but we're not in it.

Re: democracy, all of the laws coming out of the EU either do not affect me in any meaningful way or are ones that I agree with and that our government may well want to strip away. If the EU were blocking laws that I felt were positive or important, I may feel differently, but that's not happening.

Some misinformation in this thread possibly.

1. The ECtHR is NOT an EU institution. Our withdrawal from the EU treaties would NOT remove us from the binding judgements of the ECtHR. Most of the tabloid frenzy against the UK having to observe the "human rights" of extremists, prisoners and so on is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to whether or not we leave the EU treaties.

2. Ian has, in my view correctly, summarised the main non-xenophobic arguments (although I do acknowledge that many xenophobes do use them, somewhat ignorantly, as a veil, and surely Ian knows this to be true). They are all (in my opinion) quite weak:

a) Our EU trade deals were negotiated together with the other EU nations. They are favourable to us, on the whole, although arguably, we could achieve more with certain nations such as China. My view on this is that we risk a significant period of instability as individual trade deals are negotiated to replace all the EU ones; that more open, flatter, freer deals with the likes of China and Brazil open us up to lower regulation which is something I don't support; and that TTIP is on balance MORE likely with the UK by itself than with EU wide protests stopping it. This is my opinion.

b) The billions we pay into the EU is a macro version of wealth redistribution, something else I support politically and fiscally. Poorer countries have benefitted wildly from EU membership thanks to EU funding large infrastructure works. In return the quality of living standards in those countries has commensurately increased. I get that people don't want to pay for Slovak roads and tunnels. But as an internationalist, I do.

c) The EU's commission and "civil service" cannot pass ANY, not one single, regulation without the parliament's approval. That parliament is elected, at least partly, by us. If we choose to fill it with ineffective xenophobic UKIPpers then that is our prerogative. But to say there is a democratic deficit is simply not true. It's up to us to be more engaged in the process.

I resent the implication that I am a regressive leftist. I understand the frustrations of being labelled a racist when you have seemingly reasonable reasons to leave the EU. I just don't believe those reasons are good enough to warrant the upheaval and risk.

I'm listening.

Funkstain wrote:

I resent the implication that I am a regressive leftist. I understand the frustrations of being labelled a racist when you have seemingly reasonable reasons to leave the EU. I just don't believe those reasons are good enough to warrant the upheaval and risk.

I'm not implying you're anything, unless I missed a post somewhere. I'm not voting to leave the EU ( although I do have concerns about it). I am concerned that the left is in a very bad way and we're going to lose every debate if we keep relying on accusations of secret bigotry.

In case the meaning of regressive has been lost. It's become a general insult these days.

I've thrown around accusations of racism with the best of them. It's not especially fair but there's still something going on there. Something that's making people look at two possible options and instead of making the obvious rational choice, making an absolutely batshit decision. Maybe just extreme ignorance or gullibility.

I think some leavers are ignorant/selfish ("why should those foreigners get our British money") rather than racist ("black people are xxx"), but maybe it's more/less nuanced than that and fuck nuance anyway

djchump wrote:

I do lol at the idea that any Kippers are wanting Britain First etc. because "hey, if we leave the EU we will be able to negotiate better trade deals, because international trade deals really are the most pressing concern in my life".

Most of the polls put it as an even split stay/go with people from the far left and the far right on each side. Not just UKIP & Britain first.

I like this straw person you've made though, but if I'm honest, I don't their views would stand up to very much scrutiny.

Wanting decisions that effect you to be taken by people that are more accountable to you is not necessarily motivated by a passion for international trade deals. Same as the people pressing for devolution to Welsh & Scottish parliaments.

Actually, the Graun published two polls that it had commissioned today, one online, one phone. The online poll was an even split, the phone poll put remain 8 points ahead, pollsters reckon that the true figure is likely between those two, but that still puts remain in the lead.

The story also mentioned that part of the reason that the polls have been showing an even split recently is because very few phone polls have been conducted, it's all been online over the past few weeks and this has been under representing the remain vote.

It's also worth noting that both of the Guardian figures are with undecideds stripped out. I suspect that, once in the polling booth, undecideds are far more likely to choose the status quo than not, but we'll see.

Obviously, pollsters, GE, Tory landslide, pinches of salt, but I don't think we're going anywhere.

I think this is the link to the Graun polls if you scroll past all the afternoon summary stuff, if not the story was published at 5:20: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/18/eu-referendum-osborne-treasury-brexit-will-cost-families-4300-a-year-politics-live