The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union

[Conscentia]

I am an 18 year old first time voter. And I am about the only person I know in my age group that is voting to leave.

Why?

[Kainesia]

I am an 18 year old first time voter. And I am about the only person I know in my age group that is voting to leave.

Why?

I want a country that is sovereign over its own laws. I have no faith in Brussels as a legislature that represents my interests.

[Ifreann]

Why?

I want a country that is sovereign over its own laws. I have no faith in Brussels as a legislature that represents my interests.

Freedom for Tooting!

[Conscentia]

Why?

I want a country that is sovereign over its own laws. I have no faith in Brussels as a legislature that represents my interests.

1. If we leave won't be able to have any influence in reforming the EU to make it more democratic.
2. And you trust the current UK Parliament to represent your interests? You aren't exactly that influential in a population of ~60 million. Why not have sovereignty for your region? Or county? Or city?

[Marcurix]

The Mayor of London is being cynically disingenuous. Or at least I assume that he is, since the Manhattan-born Boris Johnson - who only recently gave up his US citizenship for tax reasons - is presumably familiar enough with the history of the country of his birth to know better. He's quoted as writing:



Given that Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Texas, and (more debateably) Hawaii all pooled their sovereignty to form part of what became a larger continent-wide federation, I would rather think that the United States is a fine example of how neighbours in a particular hemisphere might band together for the greater good, even the US might not be a specific model for the European Union.

There are differences between the two situations, of course, and only a minority of US states were previously sovereign entities; but it's arguably a better starting point for comparison than pretending that 'Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU', when so many anti-EU campaigners spend so much time complaining that they don't want the EU to become a 'United States of Europe'. Clearly some people on Boris' side are aware of the analogy.

So who, precisely, is being 'incoherent' and 'hypocritical' here?

What is being meant is that the U.S congress would never enter into an agreement where they surrendered political and legal power to Ottowa and had to pay a net loss of money to keep the Mexican economy afloat. That's what's happened to us. Sure, you could say your point that the U.S is an example of how a union of nations can work, but the states have not really seen themselves as independent nationstates since the civil war. Brexit campaigners are talking about how the U.S would react to a union with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina etc. and was forced to give up powers on immigration, business regulation and so on. Can you imagine the republican uproar? Donald Trump's head would become so hot that the alien parasite living on it will need to find a new host.

I've no doubt Arch is well aware of what they were implying, he's simply pointing out that the USA can be compared to the EU in a certain manner. That manner being that certain entities did give up sovereignty to join the USA, they surrendered political and legal power to Washington to a much greater degree than we have to Brussels. That these entities have not seen themselves as seperate for some time doesn't detract from that point.

[Frank Zipper]

The one thing that won't get into the thick skulls of Brexiters is the thing that Obama nailed.

Outside of the EU, Britain would not be a priority for anyone to do trade deals with. Sure, trade deals with the UK would be nice. But trade negotiations always take upwards of 3 years, and really everyone has other shit going on.

The other thing is that what we are voting on is not just whether to be part of the EU single market. We are also voting on our inclusion in all the Trade Agreements the EU has going on. All of those would have to be renegotiated all over again as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... agreements

Forget governing the country. We'd likely spend the next 10 years doing nothing but negotiating trade deals we will have lost.

They also seem to forget that a lot of trade deals non-EU countries have with the EU specifically exclude financial services. The City being cut out of the European financial services sector would be a disaster for it as a financial centre.

[Valaran]

Why?

I want a country that is sovereign over its own laws. I have no faith in Brussels as a legislature that represents my interests.

What particular element of sovereignty would you like returned?

The legislature in Brussels is much more likely to be anti-Britain if we leave.

[Rufford]

I'm a 13 year old British citizen (and yes i am interested in politics) and i think it would be terrible for Britain to leave. However i think Britain will leave as voting to change some thing has become the more attractive option. I think those campaining for brexit have the upper hand as all of the big personalitys want brexit. I think that Britain has to stay as otherwise it would devistate the economy, we woud spend years negotiating trade deals and i expect we would probably end up with boris as PM

[Valaran]

What is being meant is that the U.S congress would never enter into an agreement where they surrendered political and legal power to Ottowa and had to pay a net loss of money to keep the Mexican economy afloat. T

Well, that's interesting, as the US has indeed bailed out Mexico Mexico. I'm also not sure if the analogy with Canada is fair. The UK still has a voice in Brussels (a horrifically mismanaged voice, but voice nevertheless), while simply losing political and legal power to Canada does implies no American voice or say in their legislation. Alternatively, we can chart that the US has lost some level of sovereignty through membership of the WTO, WHO, and ILO (and various other bodies), all of which have imposed regulations (ie legal authority) on the US. It seems far more correct to make a an analogy with them, since the US has had a voice in determining their legislation, unlike the legislation from ottawa.

Brexit campaigners are talking about how the U.S would react to a union with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina etc. and was forced to give up powers on immigration, business regulation and so on.

They well may argue that, but its hardly a factual argument. The UK has retained control over immigration, and has some of the lowest business regulation within the EU. This is not a fair or accurate analogy to make.

[Rufford]

I want a country that is sovereign over its own laws. I have no faith in Brussels as a legislature that represents my interests.

What particular element of sovereignty would you like returned?

The legislature in Brussels is much more likely to be anti-Britain if we leave.

We are lucky to have access to the free trade market and not be in the schengen area. The migrant crisis isnt a way to try and get out as even if we do leave the migrant crisis won't just dissapear, thats why if we want to sort that out, we have to sort out syria

[Valaran]

What particular element of sovereignty would you like returned?

The legislature in Brussels is much more likely to be anti-Britain if we leave.

We are lucky to have access to the free trade market and not be in the schengen area. The migrant crisis isnt a way to try and get out as even if we do leave the migrant crisis won't just dissapear, thats why if we want to sort that out, we have to sort out syria

Yeah - we have a good 'deal' as it were.

In fairness, I think sorting out Syria is beyond our powers at the moment. Instead, I think the UK should be focusing on Libya right now, as its somewhat our mess.

[Rufford]

We are lucky to have access to the free trade market and not be in the schengen area. The migrant crisis isnt a way to try and get out as even if we do leave the migrant crisis won't just dissapear, thats why if we want to sort that out, we have to sort out syria

Yeah - we have a good 'deal' as it were.

In fairness, I think sorting out Syria is beyond our powers at the moment. Instead, I think the UK should be focusing on Libya right now, as its somewhat our mess.

Libya is our problem, but we have already gotten involved in Syria as our foreign policy seems to be do what the Americans do.

[Rufford]

I also think brexit have the upper hand as Cameron's reputation has been ruined by the Panama papers and that leaflet he spent 9 mil on (it didn't have much in it for those who didn't get it). He also seems to be under even more pressure from Obama on the EU and military spending, maybe thats why he can't really do anything right at the moment.

[Ad Nihilo]

I'm a 13 year old British citizen (and yes i am interested in politics) and i think it would be terrible for Britain to leave. However i think Britain will leave as voting to change some thing has become the more attractive option. I think those campaining for brexit have the upper hand as all of the big personalitys want brexit. I think that Britain has to stay as otherwise it would devistate the economy, we woud spend years negotiating trade deals and i expect we would probably end up with boris as PM

Lol. Here's a satirical take on the "big personalities": http://filthy-foreigner.ghost.io/russel ... pocalypse/

[Rufford]

I'm a 13 year old British citizen (and yes i am interested in politics) and i think it would be terrible for Britain to leave. However i think Britain will leave as voting to change some thing has become the more attractive option. I think those campaining for brexit have the upper hand as all of the big personalitys want brexit. I think that Britain has to stay as otherwise it would devistate the economy, we woud spend years negotiating trade deals and i expect we would probably end up with boris as PM

Lol. Here's a satirical take on the "big personalities": http://filthy-foreigner.ghost.io/russel ... pocalypse/

Wow

[Minoa]

It is not just the referendum for me, as the Austerity and privacy controversy poses a greater question for me:

Will I even want to remain in the UK any more?

The answer to that is … no.

[Rufford]

It is not just the referendum for me, as the Austerity and privacy controversy poses a greater question for me:

Will I even want to remain in the UK any more?

The answer to that is … no.

Are you Scottish or you'd acctualy want to move to a different country?

[Valaran]

Libya is our problem, but we have already gotten involved in Syria as our foreign policy seems to be do what the Americans do.

We're not seriously involved beyond an operational level of dealing with IS though (and some nebulous diplomacy), so its perfectly within our power to sit the Syria one out. And tbh, if the Americans and Russians can't handle it, then our addition probably won't change anything either.

[Rufford]

Libya is our problem, but we have already gotten involved in Syria as our foreign policy seems to be do what the Americans do.

We're not seriously involved beyond an operational level of dealing with IS though (and some nebulous diplomacy), so its perfectly within our power to sit the Syria one out. And tbh, if the Americans and Russians can't handle it, then our addition probably won't change anything either.

Yep

[Imperializt Russia]

Libya is our problem, but we have already gotten involved in Syria as our foreign policy seems to be do what the Americans do.

We're not seriously involved beyond an operational level of dealing with IS though (and some nebulous diplomacy), so its perfectly within our power to sit the Syria one out. And tbh, if the Americans and Russians can't handle it, then our addition probably won't change anything either.

Of course while it's not invalid to look at the contribution of UK air forces in numbers alone and compare that to other air forces, and I did this during the Syria airstrike debate, it does miss out on the big picture.

The UK commits few warplanes to the Syria operation as a whole, but as part of the coalition, they're allocated to key roles. This is how the much smaller British forces have always fought with the Americans, back to the Second World War. The American air forces are engaged in a general air campaign bombing pretty much anything. The British aircraft were tasked with striking high-value targets such as IS-controlled oilfields and the infrastructure they used to move that product. The US could have separated off a unit to do this, but it would mean reducing the power they had for general purposes by focusing on a single objective. They can just delegate that to us.

In Iraq, Britain held down Basra. In Afghanistan, Britain held down Helmand. In the Gulf, 1st Armoured Div (UK) covered the flank of the two US Corps in the Hail Mary Pass. In Normandy, Britain tied up German reserves and armour around Caen that allowed the bulk of American armour under Patton to encircle the Germans.

[Valaran]

Of course while it's not invalid to look at the contribution of UK air forces in numbers alone and compare that to other air forces, and I did this during the Syria airstrike debate, it does miss out on the big picture.

The UK commits few warplanes to the Syria operation as a whole, but as part of the coalition, they're allocated to key roles. This is how the much smaller British forces have always fought with the Americans, back to the Second World War. The American air forces are engaged in a general air campaign bombing pretty much anything. The British aircraft were tasked with striking high-value targets such as IS-controlled oilfields and the infrastructure they used to move that product. The US could have separated off a unit to do this, but it would mean reducing the power they had for general purposes by focusing on a single objective. They can just delegate that to us.

I'm not denying our operational significance; I am aware of our ISR contribution, various unique assets like Paveway IV bombs, and our general capabilities being on part with the US (wasn't as knowledgeable on Syrian delegation though).

But my point was that this does not give us significant stakes or influence with regards to sorting out the migrant crisis via a peace deal in Syria, or much leverage otherwise on major actors. Strikes against IS are largely separate to those issues, and this is our only area of significant contribution to western/NATO policy. (By 'sit this out' I 'm referring to the peace talks).

[Rufford]

Of course while it's not invalid to look at the contribution of UK air forces in numbers alone and compare that to other air forces, and I did this during the Syria airstrike debate, it does miss out on the big picture.

The UK commits few warplanes to the Syria operation as a whole, but as part of the coalition, they're allocated to key roles. This is how the much smaller British forces have always fought with the Americans, back to the Second World War. The American air forces are engaged in a general air campaign bombing pretty much anything. The British aircraft were tasked with striking high-value targets such as IS-controlled oilfields and the infrastructure they used to move that product. The US could have separated off a unit to do this, but it would mean reducing the power they had for general purposes by focusing on a single objective. They can just delegate that to us.

I'm not denying our operational significance; I am aware of our ISR contribution, various unique assets like Paveway IV bombs, and our general capabilities being on part with the US (wasn't as knowledgeable on delegation though).

But my point was that this does not give us significant stakes or influence with regards to sorting out the migrant crisis via a peace deal in Syria, or much leverage otherwise on major actors. Strikes against IS are largely separate to those issues, and this is our only area of significant contribution to western/NATO policy. (By 'sit this out' I 'm referring to the peace talks).

Yes.

[Teemant]

We're not seriously involved beyond an operational level of dealing with IS though (and some nebulous diplomacy), so its perfectly within our power to sit the Syria one out. And tbh, if the Americans and Russians can't handle it, then our addition probably won't change anything either.

Of course while it's not invalid to look at the contribution of UK air forces in numbers alone and compare that to other air forces, and I did this during the Syria airstrike debate, it does miss out on the big picture.

The UK commits few warplanes to the Syria operation as a whole, but as part of the coalition, they're allocated to key roles. This is how the much smaller British forces have always fought with the Americans, back to the Second World War. The American air forces are engaged in a general air campaign bombing pretty much anything. The British aircraft were tasked with striking high-value targets such as IS-controlled oilfields and the infrastructure they used to move that product. The US could have separated off a unit to do this, but it would mean reducing the power they had for general purposes by focusing on a single objective. They can just delegate that to us.

In Iraq, Britain held down Basra. In Afghanistan, Britain held down Helmand. In the Gulf, 1st Armoured Div (UK) covered the flank of the two US Corps in the Hail Mary Pass. In Normandy, Britain tied up German reserves and armour around Caen that allowed the bulk of American armour under Patton to encircle the Germans.

Whenever I read about modern US military operations it seems to me that they only include European countries to present themselves as being part of a larger international coalition. US does all the main work and other countries can operate in the backgrounds. For example during Libya intervention I remember reading news that said that Royal Navy was running out of ammunition eventhough USA was doing most of the bombing. The reality seems to be the case that UK and European countries can't sustain or carry any military offensives themselves (currently only European country that can project power seems to be France). US takes that into consideration and makes Europeans feel like they are contributing.

[Minoa]

It is not just the referendum for me, as the Austerity and privacy controversy poses a greater question for me:

Will I even want to remain in the UK any more?

The answer to that is … no.

Are you Scottish or you'd acctualy want to move to a different country?

I live in London.

[Rufford]

Of course while it's not invalid to look at the contribution of UK air forces in numbers alone and compare that to other air forces, and I did this during the Syria airstrike debate, it does miss out on the big picture.

The UK commits few warplanes to the Syria operation as a whole, but as part of the coalition, they're allocated to key roles. This is how the much smaller British forces have always fought with the Americans, back to the Second World War. The American air forces are engaged in a general air campaign bombing pretty much anything. The British aircraft were tasked with striking high-value targets such as IS-controlled oilfields and the infrastructure they used to move that product. The US could have separated off a unit to do this, but it would mean reducing the power they had for general purposes by focusing on a single objective. They can just delegate that to us.

In Iraq, Britain held down Basra. In Afghanistan, Britain held down Helmand. In the Gulf, 1st Armoured Div (UK) covered the flank of the two US Corps in the Hail Mary Pass. In Normandy, Britain tied up German reserves and armour around Caen that allowed the bulk of American armour under Patton to encircle the Germans.

Whenever I read about modern US military operations it seems to me that they only include European countries to present themselves as being part of a larger international coalition. US does all the main work and other countries can operate in the backgrounds. For example during Libya intervention I remember reading news that said that Royal Navy was running out of ammunition eventhough USA was doing most of the bombing. The reality seems to be the case that UK and European countries can't sustain or carry any military offensives themselves (currently only European country that can project power seems to be France). US takes that into consideration and makes Europeans feel like they are contributing.

Ok, but i expect they to that in case russia gets involved and they have a disagreement, europe is a good strategic base for them.