Oh don’t worry, if you’ve seen me get, ah, passionate here before now you’ll know I’ve a thick skin . Robust debating is fun IMHO .
Anyway (glances at the mods), I want that referendum because it’s our best chance to get out of a corrupt, anti-democratic, protectionist racket. If we leave, it means the UK gets to set its own trade policies again (eg with the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations, which are both more populous and faster-growing than the EU and/or just the Eurozone - oh, and let’s not forget we share a head of state with a bunch of them!), and given that we have a trade deficit with the rest of the EU (ie, we buy more of their stuff than they buy of ours), it’ll be in their interests to continue trading freely (or relatively freely) with us.
As Dan Hannan puts it, if you’re going to shackle yourself to a regional trade bloc, the EU is basically the worst possible one to pick . And culturally, I have far more in common with Canadians, Aussies, yanks and Indians (and New Zealanders, and… yeah look up an old map of the British Empire I guess, you get the picture ) than I have with basically any European culture.
I agree the defence budget should be protected, but sadly there are few votes in defence these days, what with the Cold War being over. On the lack of housing, bleh: damned whoever you vote for. Tories will be wary of building on greenbelt land, Labour will try and somehow magic up housing from somewhere (“pay for it? Say what?” )… my instinct is to go with the free market option though.
It can lead to a lot of uncertainty. Technically, the Queen picks an MP to be the next PM, but traditionally (if not legally) they must have a command of a majority in the Commons. If they lack one, she can form a minority government, but that may well lead to another election before long.
In US terms, a hung parliament is like having one party control the House of Reps and the other control the Senate: a recipe for gridlock without some cross-party support.
(On the other hand, a “not-hung” parliament is like having control of all 3 branches of the US government, including the super-majorities required to pass constitutional amendments. The British system is predicated on “parliamentary sovereignty” rather than, say, “popular sovereignty”, so Parliament is pretty powerful.)
Finally, unlike the US system, the PM is not separate from the legislature: he or she must be an MP. Imagine if Obama was still in a Senator when he became President.
Pro-EU: The EU is a massive boost to the economy, has prevented war in Europe since WW2, loads of convenient things (visa-free travel etc).
Anti-EU: See above. War in Europe was prevented by (a) the Cold War and (b) the USA. Also see Dan Hannan’s blog post re the economic “benefits” of being shackled to the EU.
Economically, the case is overwhelmingly against it (as an aside, notice how it’s the same people supporting staying in who supported adopting the Euro for the UK etc… “always wrong all the time” ).
Oh, what twaddle. The EU is explicitly trying for, to quote its own documents, “ever closer union”, and many of its politicians and such openly talk about wanting to make it into an honest-to-god supranational government.
Saying that by opposing this you want “early 20th century views on State Sovereignty” is daft. I am not European, I am British, my head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, and I do not see why we should be prevented from trading on our own terms with any part of the world on the insistence of any foreign power.
Heck, try that line on most people around the world, and I suspect you’ll find you’re in a minority. Ask a Chinese person why their trade policy should be blocked by Japan or Thailand or the Philippines, or ask an American why Mexico should be able to veto their trade arrangements: the answer is generally going to be “they can’t” - or perhaps, if they’re more politically nuanced, “given realpolitiks they can obviously try, especially if they have legitimate concerns, but they have no right to”.
Oh, finally… it’s the pro-EU side that’s isolationist. The anti-EU people (“hi”) want to leave the EU so that we can have more trade with the world, not less. How does leaving a trade bloc in order to be able to trade with everyone make you isolationist exactly?
(And no, it’s not about global prestige or power projection. The UK does that very well without (or in spite of) the EU, just like France.)
The numbers may be smaller than he claims, but people still don’t like it much. 30 secs of googling yields this from YouGov for example.
Similar stuff here. Clearly, it’s still a serious issue for many.
Exactly how left- or right- wing UKIP ends up being is going to be interesting actually, because from what I’ve seen they do draw a lot of their support from traditional Labour voters (ie, working class types). Now I think you’re right that Nigel Farage is very much a Thatcherite (hence why I approve of him ), but I think we’re going to have to disagree on how destructive his policies will be for working class people in the UK. Heck, imagine that UKIP gets into power in May, and slashes immigration down to, oh, 5,000 a year. Suddenly, a lot of downward pressure on low-skilled jobs will disappear (at least over a few years, given that these things take time to have an effect), which will be rather nice for a lot of working class people in the UK, no?
Don’t forget the greens, the various communist parties, the BNP, and all the other wacky far-Left power-worshipping totalitarians.
As for US politics, hmm. The GOP have a nice selection on offer: union-busting Scott Walker, Tea Party favourites like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (also what about VP Paul Ryan?), plus more moderate candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush (though I doubt it’ll be the latter, the name being too poisonous still). The Democrats have… Hillary “laws are for little people” Clinton*.
Um. I’m thinking the Dems could be in for an uphill struggle this time around.
*Seriously, read up on her abuse of a private email server etc for all her State Dept. emails etc. It’s not “did anyone get access to them?” IMHO, it’s “how many?” …