The result of the EU referendum:

[Jack Knave]

Ken Clarke had it dead right when he described UKIP as:

"'a collection of clowns . . . some of the party's supporters are racist . . . "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-clarke-calls-ukip-a-collection-of-clowns-and-claims-some-of-the-partys-supporters-are-racist-and-8591478.html

He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.

[Jack Knave]

Nope - in what way is my comment two faced JK. Please explain, because as far as I can see it is entirely consistent to see the value in each entity being part of something larger (so Scotland in the UK, and the UK in the EU) if (as I do) I would like the whole notion of the primacy of the nation state to be progressively downgraded so that national borders become less and less important.

And by doing that you can really get down to the concept of subsidiary - in other words that decisions are made at the most local level appropriate for that decision. The problem with the primacy of the nation state is that some decisions are taken too remotely (at the national government level rather than local/regional level to demonstrate that nation state primacy) and some decisions are taken too locally (again at the the national government level rather than at international level to demonstrate that nation state primacy).

Nothing two faced there JK. Don't forget that democracy and nation state primacy aren't the same thing. I believe in democracy I don't believe in the primacy of the nation state.

You criticise the flag wavers of the nation state and yet wave your EU flag. Loyalty at one level transposed to another more insidious one. What you find fault in the nation state is even a bigger problem in the EU state. You have just pushed the problem to a bigger institution and into few hands. The kind of thing we saw in Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia and else where.

And who is to say what should be done at the federal level, the national level and at the more local level? One thing is for sure the EU set-up hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval - and when it is vaguely presented to them under a veil of obscurity and opaqueness such as to Ireland, France and Denmark that if they vote the wrong way they get told how to do it 'properly'. Does that sound like an institution trying to do the right thing for the people or some megalomaniacs pushing their monstrous ideology to suit their delusional cravings?

We know that these wet dream utopian projects set in huge federal arrangement always go sour. I thought we were suppose to learn from history not insanely repeat it! It seems now that even some of the pro-EU lot in Brussels are expressing the idea that the EU won't be about in a decades time - lets hope so; the signs are it is falling to bits...thank god!!!

[L.A.]

He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.

Business, big, medium and small are our lifeblood - and if the multinationals start to de-invest in this country because access to the European market is more expensive - the effects will ripple down as suppliers and sub-contractors go out of business - and we ALL suffer.

. . . though (I suppose) on the positive side, there won't be so many migrants coming to 'take our jobs' because there won't be any jobs!

[Sriram]

The referendum will almost entirely be based on sentiment, rather than rational analysis...I think.  Lot depends on the situation around the time of the referendum. If there is a sudden Greek crisis or migrant crisis or something...people will likely vote to move out of the EU. If everything is hunky dory...people will likely vote to be in. 

[Jack Knave]

Business, big, medium and small are our lifeblood - and if the multinationals start to de-invest in this country because access to the European market is more expensive - the effects will ripple down as suppliers and sub-contractors go out of business - and we ALL suffer.

. . . though (I suppose) on the positive side, there won't be so many migrants coming to 'take our jobs' because there won't be any jobs!

Something similar was said about joining the Euro and now look at the situation - who'd want to be Greece!!!

No, if we leave then the EU will crumble as all the other peoples of Europe will want to get out and not be subject to the dictators in Brussels.

[ProfessorDavey]

You criticise the flag wavers of the nation state and yet wave your EU flag. Loyalty at one level transposed to another more insidious one. What you find fault in the nation state is even a bigger problem in the EU state. You have just pushed the problem to a bigger institution and into few hands. The kind of thing we saw in Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia and else where.

I have no interest in waving any flag JK, that's the whole point. You are unable to see beyond a 'nation state primacy' approach and therefore see me as need to 'transfer' my loyalty from one level to another. You are completely missing the point - it is perfectly possible to accept that decisions are best taken at different levels - so I don't want local planning decisions to be taken at UK parliament level, they should be taken by a local council - I don't want national parliaments to be making unilateral environmental targets, as the environment affects us all - I want those decisions taken at a higher level. It is horses for courses and I don't see one level at 'inherently' more important than any other - they simply have different roles. So I am perfectly content with being 'loyal' to local councils, regional assemblies (I wish I had one), UK government, EU and UN for example on the basis that each is the best place to make a particular decision. So I have no interest in these claims of sovereignty - lets face it that should really mean democracy and the UK government is no more democratic to the people in the UK than the EU structures (both the EU parliament and those associated with the individual governments of each member state) is to the people of the EU.

And who is to say what should be done at the federal level, the national level and at the more local level? One thing is for sure the EU set-up hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval - and when it is vaguely presented to them under a veil of obscurity and opaqueness such as to Ireland, France and Denmark that if they vote the wrong way they get told how to do it 'properly'. Does that sound like an institution trying to do the right thing for the people or some megalomaniacs pushing their monstrous ideology to suit their delusional cravings?

Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.

And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.

We know that these wet dream utopian projects set in huge federal arrangement always go sour. I thought we were suppose to learn from history not insanely repeat it! It seems now that even some of the pro-EU lot in Brussels are expressing the idea that the EU won't be about in a decades time - lets hope so; the signs are it is falling to bits...thank god!!!

Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years. And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.

[Hope]

Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.

Talking to people from mainland Europe who I know, they  suggest that Europe has this type of understanding, but that the EU doesn't - that the EU overrides the decentralised nature of European nations and imposes centralised programmes on them.  I am happy to accept thgat I haven't had sufficient expereince of life in such a nation to judge, but I think that there would be people in Europe who would differ in their analysis to you, PD.

And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.

I think you will find that the '74 EEC referendum was on a constitutional issue, and we were also promised referenda on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, but were never given any.

Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years. And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.

The latter of which will see not only the rUK outside of the EU but Scotland as well.  With so many separatist movements in various parts of the current EU, I can't see a newly independent Scotland being warmly received into the fold - there will be too many nations who won't want to see a precedent being set.

[Hope]

He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.

Yet he has been saying very similar things for decades, even before a Brexit was mooted.  By the way, if KC is a cheerleader for bib business for saying this, that would seem to place Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Labour Party in the same camp!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Talking to people from mainland Europe who I know, they  suggest that Europe has this type of understanding, but that the EU doesn't - that the EU overrides the decentralised nature of European nations and imposes centralised programmes on them.  I am happy to accept thgat I haven't had sufficient expereince of life in such a nation to judge, but I think that there would be people in Europe who would differ in their analysis to you, PD.

Wrong Hope - not only are most EU countries more inherently decentralised than the UK (which is I think the most centralised OECD country in the world), but subsidiarity (the concept the all decisions should be taken at the most local level appropriate) is actually embedded in the constitution of the EU. This from the Maastricht treaty:

'Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.'

I think you will find that the '74 EEC referendum was on a constitutional issue, and we were also promised referenda on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, but were never given any.

Firstly I am too young to have voted in 1974, but more importantly I was talking about the UK constitution, not the UK's arraignment with the EU.

So have you (or anyone else) been able to vote in referendum on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic, the role/composition of the second chamber, whether we should have a state religion - to give but three examples. No-one has had any direct say on the entire UK constitution as a whole or in part.

Indeed we don't even have a proper written constitution, so JK's claim that the EU 'hasn't been fully and clearly and transparently presented to the people for approval' where every part of the EU constitution is written and clear is much more apt for the UK itself with its completely vague so-called unwritten constitution.

The latter of which will see not only the rUK outside of the EU but Scotland as well.  With so many separatist movements in various parts of the current EU, I can't see a newly independent Scotland being warmly received into the fold - there will be too many nations who won't want to see a precedent being set.

I agree - an independent Scotland would become mired in the politics of other countries not wanting to make it easier for their separatist regions to become independent. So they will make Scotland's accession to the EU complex, long and with plenty of strings attached. They, will, in my opinion allow Scotland in but not 'on the nod'.

[jeremyp]

He has never got it right because he is cheerleader for big business, as they pay him to say these things.

Classic ad hominem

[Jack Knave]

Classic ad hominem

It hit a nerve and that is a sign it is the truth, so go on admit it!!!

[Jack Knave]

I have no interest in waving any flag JK, that's the whole point. You are unable to see beyond a 'nation state primacy' approach and therefore see me as need to 'transfer' my loyalty from one level to another. You are completely missing the point - it is perfectly possible to accept that decisions are best taken at different levels - so I don't want local planning decisions to be taken at UK parliament level, they should be taken by a local council - I don't want national parliaments to be making unilateral environmental targets, as the environment affects us all - I want those decisions taken at a higher level. It is horses for courses and I don't see one level at 'inherently' more important than any other - they simply have different roles. So I am perfectly content with being 'loyal' to local councils, regional assemblies (I wish I had one), UK government, EU and UN for example on the basis that each is the best place to make a particular decision. So I have no interest in these claims of sovereignty - lets face it that should really mean democracy and the UK government is no more democratic to the people in the UK than the EU structures (both the EU parliament and those associated with the individual governments of each member state) is to the people of the EU.

But you fail to see that the EU isn't required in the scheme you have set out, as it imposes its undemocratic will on nation states and local regions on issues (i.e. laws) which have nothing to do with it or are handled by other bodies. So your green issue you mention is taken care of by things like the COP21 conferences. The EU is an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and can be disbanded for most things. And as for the UN its mandate says that the nation state takes preference to all other laws; unless of course they are stupid enough to give their powers away.

Well actually I think that the EU 'gets' the notion of decision making being at the right level, and most local as possible, much more than the UK. Why, because most EU countries are much more decentralised than the UK, which has one of the most centralised government and decision making structures going.

And on transparency and legitimacy of constitution, when was the last time you were asked in a referendum to directly decide on the constitution of the UK. The answer will be never - the only referendum I have ever voted in was on the voting system, but that is different to a vote on fundamental constitution. So why is it that the little Englanders bang on about getting a say on Europe, but are totally silent on getting a say on the UK, in other words on fundamental constitutional issues.

We don't have a written constitution so could you clarify what you mean exactly.

The EU grabs all the useful power and wealth and leaves the crumbles to the rest. Much of that power should be at the national level and I agree that regional areas should be given more powers - and that is something UKIP is in favour of.

As for your last bit the dictatorship of the EU needs to be dealt with first before powers are handed down to local regions for how can the national level disperse these necessary powers if they are held in Brussels?

(By the way your use of the term little Englander gives your flag waving colours loyalties away)

Oh you mean the one that has maintained peace and massively increasers prosperity over the past 60-odd years.

Once again your language blows your claims to neutrality to pieces.

This claim to peace is absurd. Do you really think that after WWII Europe would have carried on looking to find ways to create more wars? The wars were caused by megalomaniac ideologies which is what the EU is and the war that is going on now is a class war - look how the Greek people have been totally abused by the elites in Brussels! Ground root voices all over the EU are echoing the discontentment of how Brussels is ruling with an iron fist; for the elites, that is, the bankers and big business.

And as for prosperity, for who? Not the people, like the Greeks. But only the ruling classes are getting richer!!!

And if your side win the referendum, it is pretty well nailed on that the EU will still be around for longer than the UK will be, as a vote to leave the EU will precipitate a vote by Scotland to leave the UK, effectively breaking up the latter.

Again, nakedly showing your real colours!!!

Much of that is guesswork. Even many in Brussels are now talking about the demise of the EU, say in a decades time. The various countries of the UK will still be standing then. 

[Jack Knave]

Yet he has been saying very similar things for decades, even before a Brexit was mooted.  By the way, if KC is a cheerleader for bib business for saying this, that would seem to place Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Labour Party in the same camp!!

KC? I think it was JP who said these things that caused me to claim such bribed loyalty of him.

Labour are in the same camp as Goldman Sachs!!! The Left have always been stupid.

[Jack Knave]

'Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.'

You may have noticed how the EU doesn't even keep to its own rules and laws, so this subsidiarity is actually just there to keep the 'plebs' quiet. And as Hope has said it isn't kept to and as such much of the 'locals' in the EU are in fact governed by laws from Brussels.

So have you (or anyone else) been able to vote in referendum on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic, the role/composition of the second chamber, whether we should have a state religion - to give but three examples. No-one has had any direct say on the entire UK constitution as a whole or in part.

Have the American people been asked to vote on their constitution in recent decades, to approve it? No! And if they look closely at how things are going, over the pond, it is being infringed on with impunity by their elites.

If it really did bother the British people I'm sure they would be demanding changes on those things you mention. And Hope is right the Treaties do play apart in shaping our constitution; remember the Lisbon Treaty was originally called the EU constitution.

[L.A.]

Something similar was said about joining the Euro and now look at the situation - who'd want to be Greece!!!

No, if we leave then the EU will crumble as all the other peoples of Europe will want to get out and not be subject to the dictators in Brussels.

The EU certainly faces a lot of problems and will have to change, with or without us, but it will continue to exist and it will remain a very important market.

The problem for us will be that if we are out, we will have no influence over how it changes.

[ProfessorDavey]

You may have noticed how the EU doesn't even keep to its own rules and laws, so this subsidiarity is actually just there to keep the 'plebs' quiet. And as Hope has said it isn't kept to and as such much of the 'locals' in the EU are in fact governed by laws from Brussels.

Oh yes it does - aren't you aware that a significant amount of funding from the EU is distributed down to local/regional level because the EU believes in subsidiarity and therefore distributes funding to the correct levels for those functions.

Have the American people been asked to vote on their constitution in recent decades, to approve it? No! And if they look closely at how things are going, over the pond, it is being infringed on with impunity by their elites.

If it really did bother the British people I'm sure they would be demanding changes on those things you mention. And Hope is right the Treaties do play apart in shaping our constitution; remember the Lisbon Treaty was originally called the EU constitution.

How about taking the plank from your own eye. So everyone must have a direct say on every other constitution, but no-one can have a direct say on the UK constitution. Isn't that rank double standards.

And you complained about the EU constitution being opaque - well it is as clear as day compared to the murky, unclear UK 'unwritten' constitution. So if you are really concerned about the clarity of constitutions and that they have democratic legitimacy, sure the first place to look is the UK, to demand that government set out a clear written constitution and then gain direct democratic approval via a referendum.

But actually, of course, you aren't really interested in constitutional issues, you are really just another 'little englander'-type petty nationalist who cannot stand the EU.

[jeremyp]

But actually, of course, you aren't really interested in constitutional issues, you are really just another 'little englander'-type petty nationalist who cannot stand the EU.

I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.

[L.A.]

I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.

It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.

Indeed and this notion of absolute sovereignty is outdated and illusional.

Whenever we chose to be part of a greater grouping we trade off the benefits of membership of that bigger group against some loss of sovereignty at nation state level. So we give up some sovereignty to the part of NATO, we give up some sovereignty to be part of the UN, likewise the OECD and to some extent the G8. Yet the little englanders aren't jumping up and down about leaving NATO as it involves significant loss of power to act (or not to act) for individual NATO members, such as the UK.

So if you really think sovereignty is the be all and end all (I would strongly disagree with you, but it is a view) then you should be campaigning to complete isolationism - leave the EU and NATO and the UN and OECD etc etc etc. But if not then the issue of national sovereignty is simply a straw man.

[jakswan]

I find it interesting that the Brexiters haven't named any clear benefits of leaving yet but they are appealing to nebulous concepts of self rule and sovereignty.

What is nebulous about self-rule and sovereignty?

[jakswan]

It seems to me that an awful lot of the 'advantages' of bexit are illusory. If we were really lucky (and pragmatic) we might well be able to negotiate a deal that would still give us access to the EU market, but that deal would likely to have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages as we have at present. Nothing would have changed - except that we would then be excluded from the decision making processes of Europe.

We would not get roped into TTIP, we might be able to opt out of giving EU migrants in work benefits for however long we choose, the UK courts would have the final say, the democratic deficit would be within UK's control to solve.

[jakswan]

Indeed and this notion of absolute sovereignty is outdated and illusional.

Whenever we chose to be part of a greater grouping we trade off the benefits of membership of that bigger group against some loss of sovereignty at nation state level. So we give up some sovereignty to the part of NATO, we give up some sovereignty to be part of the UN, likewise the OECD and to some extent the G8. Yet the little englanders aren't jumping up and down about leaving NATO as it involves significant loss of power to act (or not to act) for individual NATO members, such as the UK.

So if you really think sovereignty is the be all and end all (I would strongly disagree with you, but it is a view) then you should be campaigning to complete isolationism - leave the EU and NATO and the UN and OECD etc etc etc. But if not then the issue of national sovereignty is simply a straw man.

You've created a straw man and then argued against it.

[jeremyp]

What is nebulous about self-rule and sovereignty?

Because for the majority of us, self rule is simply about a different set of people we don't know screwing us over. Is the British government really any better than the EU one? Would it be better than an English/Scottish/Welsh/NI one? I don't know.

I do know that one of the perceived advantages of leaving the EU is that we will be able to ditch the the EU human rights laws and employment laws because we'll obviously all be better off with fewer human rights and less protection from exploitative employers. Oh, wait, no.

Are there any real benefits from leaving the EU? How will it make my life better, or your life better?

[jeremyp]

We would not get roped into TTIP

If we want to trade with the EU or the USA, we'll have to abide by the rules they set. At least as a member of the EU our government gets some influence over the rules.

we might be able to opt out of giving EU migrants in work benefits for however long we choose

Yes, because it's always good to have people in your country starving to death. Oh, wait.

the UK courts would have the final say, the democratic deficit would be within UK's control to solve.

And the UK courts are better than the European ones because....?

[Jack Knave]

The EU certainly faces a lot of problems and will have to change, with or without us, but it will continue to exist and it will remain a very important market.

The problem for us will be that if we are out, we will have no influence over how it changes.

It is very unlikely that the Euro will survive and that will be that.

We have never had any influence, the dice have always been loaded from the very start. That is why we have huge splits in the Tory party because many know that the EU train is on a single line track that is going to hell.

Maggy said it very curtly, "No!, No!, NO!!"